Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/22/1999 HEARINGPp. INDEX TRANSCRIPT OF ZBA HEARINGS HELD April 22, 1999 1 Appl. No. 4668-SOUTHAMPTON LUMBER CORP. 4 Appl. No. 4677-STEPHEN & JENNIFER SCACE 8 Appl. No. 4672-DOUGLAS & AMY ROSE 9 Appl. No. 4673-JOHN LANG (HANS LANG) 10 Appl. No. 4674-STEPHEN FRIEDMAN 20 Appl. No. 4678-VINCENT & LINDA BASILICE 25 Appl. No. 4680-RAYMOND & BARRY TERRY 29 Appl. No. 4665-FRANK RAYNOR 31 Appl. No. 4676-ALBERT PALUMBO 35 Appl. No. 4679-JACKIE & JON ROGERS 38 Applo No. 4684-SHAWN TULLY 47 Appl. No. 4682-PETER & MARILYN WINTERS 49 Appl. No. SE4681-MICHAEL K. HUGHES & NORTH SHORE YACHT 66 Appl. No. 4683-VIRGINIA CAMPBELL 76 Appl. No. 4675-ANTHONY HUGHES & SUSAN HULME 80 Appl. No. 4683 -VIRGINIA CAMPBELL (Con't). 84 Appl. No. 4636-PATRICK MORTIMER Transcript of Public Hearing April 22, 1999 Southold Town Board of Appeals (Prepared by Lucy Farrell from Tape Recordings) 6:30 P.M. - Appl. No. 4668 - SOUTHAMPTON LUMBER CORP. A Variance is requested under Article XXIV, Section 100-241-G, for permission to reinstate (re-establish) use as a lumberyard and related activities, which use is nonconforming in this Hamlet Business Zone District, at 13650 Main Road, Mattituck, N.Y.; County Parcel No. 1000-114-11-24.3 (Resolution adopted 4/8/99 reopened hearing for this meeting date. ) (Former hearing was 3/25/99.) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: First hearing on the Agenda is the Southampton Lumber Corp.. This was a hearing that was reopened from the prior meeting. We closed it and at the Special Meeting, the early part of last month we opened it and we would like to ask Mr, Ham who is the gentleman that represented the applicant if he has anything for us. Somehow I thought you did Mr. Ham. MR. HAM: Yes, all of the receipts. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: us Mr. Ham? Thank you. What would you like to tell MR. HAM: Well as you know this was reopened at the request of someone who had spoken at the last hearing. I'd like to see what others have to say about this, if I may. So, I'll defer and if nobody speaks I will have a couple of comments and we'll keep it brief. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Yes ma'am. Would you state your name for the record. MS. EDSTROM: I'm Jane Edstrom. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Could you come up to the podium? Page 2 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals MRS. EDSTROM: My name is Jane Edstrom. I live on the south border of the proposed lumberyard. We bought the house in 1980 when it was a full pledged working lumberyard and I have no qualms about it being that again. It was no problem whatsoever. As a matter of fact, I think with the place being vacant, it's worst because the windows are broken, people have stolen my hammock'and taken it into the empty building. You know, I think a lumberyard would be good. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CLERK TYPIST FARRELL: How does she spell her last name? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Jane, could you spell your last name for us? MRS. EDSTROM: E D S T R O M. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to speak in favor? Yes. Diane could you state your last name for the record. MS. COTUGNO: C O T U G N O.. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: First name Diane. PT SECY. FARRELL: I have that, thank you. MS. CUTUGNO: I live to the west of the lumberyard. Well I use to anyway. I still have a business there. I leased it out and I really have no problems with it. It was a good neighbor and I'm hoping it'll still be a good neighbor. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you have any relationship? Does your tenant have any relationship with these people that they can park in front or anything like that? MS. CUTUGNO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's just word of mouth. They just do it as a matter of fact I guess, because pretty much when the lumberyard is closed, the restaurant is opened, right? MS. CUTUGNO: A, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean it .really, this restaurant really hasn't been opened since this lumberyard has been closed is what the issue is I guess you'd say. MS. CUTUGNO: there when a - No, but I had a business. I had a restaurant CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When the lumberyard was opened? Page 3 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals MS. CUTUGNO: Sure. We've been there since 72. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: all? Right and you never had any problems at MS. CUTUGNO: Never had a problem. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Thank you. Anybody else like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Yes, Mr. Cuddy. MR. CUDDY: I'm here because I represent Donielle Cardinale. I was at the last hearing. I was not representing her, I was here for an entirely different purpose but, apparently I got the honor because I was here to at least appear tonight. She cannot appear, she's just asked that the affidavit that she submitted and the papers she submitted and the comments be accepted by the Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In reality Mr. Cuddy that's exactly why we reopened the hearing so that we of course could place those documents into this file. OK, thank you so much. Anybody else like to speak? Mr. Ham, would you like to wrap it up? MR. HAM: Yes, just a couple of comments. One, I just hope that you'll focus on the fact that we're not asking for a raw piece of land to be, to have a change of use. Please take into consideration the history of this property and the fact that it does have improvements on it. That's number 1 and number 2, to the extent that Ms. Cardinale has an argument. I think at best, you have to say that the situation is ambiguous and as I pointed out in my letter in response, we feel 'chat that should be resolved in favor of the property owner, under New York State Law. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else like to say anything regarding this application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion c~osing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 4 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals 6:40 P.M. - Appl. No. 4677 - STEPHEN & JENNIFER SCACE A Variance is requested under the Southold Town Zoning Code, Article XXIV, Section 100-244 to locate a proposed dwelling with a setback at less than 55 feet from the (westerly) front property line. The subject property contains less than 79,999 sq. ft. in area and is defined as a corer lot with more than one front yard area under the Zoning Code. Location of Property: East End Road', Fishers Island, N.Y.; County Parcel No. 1000-4-5-18. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Ham are you representing the second applicant from Fishers Island? MR. HAM: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you pronounce that name? Scace? MR. HAM: I've been pronouncing it Scace just like it looks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good, OK. I have a copy of a map produced by Chandler, Palmer & King. Date appears to be July 15, 1991. There probably are significant updates on this map, however I don't see them. MEMBER COLLINS: There right above it Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: all the way. Well the problem is, I can't open the map MEMBER COLLINS: the latest one. The map says, October 12, 1998, appears to be CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: oK, great. I was on the rib, OK, thank you. And I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. We're ready. MR. HAM: I've given you a Memorandum which summarizes the argument for a Variance under the various factors under the Town Law. I do want to make a couple of points though. I think that the main point and I don't know whether you're all familiar with this. I think you probably are but, this is what's called a FIDCO lOt. This is, this comes in two sections. This is a filed map with the County Clerk now whose approved by the Planning Board and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. This lot appears as in Block 8, Lot 16 as 8-16. In my Exhibit A, I believe there's an excerpt from here where you can see the lot as shown on that map. I point that out because this is a case, is not a case where someone has picked up a lot at a tax sale or something that has all kinds of zoning and environmental problems and asks you to rectify them for them. This is a lot that was approved by the Planning Board as a building site and it passed to my client in May of 1998. The prior owner had obtained several permits. My client has now obtained the Health Department Permit, the Trustee and DEC Permits are attached Page 5 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals to my Memorandum. It has Health Department approval. It even now has the FIDCO Architectural Committee approval. The location requires a setback for two reasons. The setback variance for two reasons that's because they're extensive front yards which require 55 foot setback. However, because of the fairly extensive fresh water wetlands on the property, my client is forced to move toward one of the quote, and I said, quote "roads" because what, where that property, where the proposed location is, is essentially thai driveway. It serves maybe one or two homes. The only other feasible site would be on the Main East End Road which would be much more visible to traffic and so forth. In fact, it's probably a blessing to get it up in this particular spot because it's much less obtrusive. The site was selected I am advised, after extensive negotiations with the DEC and the Town Trustees. I point all this out in the Memorandum. And so, I would submit that this is a classic case of practical difficulty where the owner will come into conflict either with the Zoning Code or with the Environmental Laws and we feel that this is a good solution to that dilemma. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: looked at this site? Thank you. Mr. Homing, have you MEMBER HORNING: Yes I have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: shed on it? OK, do you have anything you'd like to MEMBER HORNING: Well I took a couple of polaroid pictures from the East End Road and the side road where the driveway is proposed to be, just to give you people an idea of what those look like. It's pretty rustic setting. There is no house in the immediate vicinity except one to, just to the north of the proposed house site and I think we had a Mr. Orr inquire. He lives on the other side of East End Road. His driveway is about a good quarter mile long and I .don't think you'll see this house as Mr. Ham says even from the East End Road. I don't think you'll see it. There's no other house that's in the area, one neighbor. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. We'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Any questions of Mr. Ham, Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: I just wanted a little help from either Mr. Homing or Mr. Ham. I, I'm not arguing this. I just want a little help in understanding the map. The tax map shows this property abounded by East End Road, on what you would kind of call the south. MR. HAM: Yes. Page 6 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: And a road that runs northward towards Fishers Island Sound, sought of goes around the house giving it it's second front yard. In this reference to where Mr. Ham, it's in your application you say, where the house is going to be located, basically is facing not a road but a driveway that serves only one or two other houses. MR. HAM: That's what I've been advised, yes. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, so that's kind of a dead end elbow I think. MR. HAM: Well, I think this will shed some light if you look and I'm glad I put this in here. In Exhibit A, if you look in my EXhibit A, first map exhibit, is in the FIDCO map and you'll see that there was an Old Ficdo Road which I think is now a driveway that goes back there thatts not shown on the tax map presumably because I know, I represent the people on 16, 5 and 3. I know they own that FIDCO. That portion of Fidco Road, I believe, and I think probably this owner what's called lot 16-1 or on the tax map 19.5 owns that road now, but the driveway I think is where that Old Fidco Road -. MEMBER COLLINS: 16-87 So on the FIDCO Map your client's property is MR. HAM: Yes. And, and, you'll also note, from that FIDCO Map you'll see that the adjoining portion of what's now lot and this is pointed out in my Memorandum, but the adjoining portion of lot 19.5, which is 16, 7A, and 7B. That cross hatching that you see on there if you look at the next page I've copied the legend. That's unbuildable, that's unbuildable area, so. MEMBER COLLINS: No, I just make clear, the reason why I'm asking is you know, we've got two front yard cases fairly frequently and much of the time it's technical problem in the other front yard is caused by a right-of-way or something like that. I wanted to make clear that's really what I think you're claiming here and since we can't be over there to see the property I just wanted to explore it a little bit. I'm sorry, George. MEMBER HORNING: I was going to say that as the survey map shows it's surrounded almost by extreme wetlands. There's actually a small brook running through the property parallel basically to the East End Road. You can sought of see the outline of it here and it empties right at the inter section crosses underneath that road heading north and continues on through and I would maintain that the Building Department has a bit of an error here when their siting a, the westerly front property line. It's actually I would say the easterly. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The statement that you made regarding the FIDCO property in general is that you have the small roads reentering through these parcels which very simply does cause these errors all the time, not errors from the property owner's point of Page 7 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals view, but errors within the Zoning Code as to these specific setback problems. MR. HAM: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And a you know, we've seen these you know for twenty years. I've seen them for twenty years and I, you know, I understand, you know, and of course the issue of this particular parcel too, is of course this wetland area and if the public were sitting here looking at this map, that you would see it you know, riddled with wetland grasses and you know, and probably over two-thirds of the map, or at least a half of the map anyway, and so I you know, I can see there is practical at this point. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anything else Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anything else you'd like to say Mr. Ham? MR. HAM: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: hearing if anything else. and your brief. OK, we'll see what develops at the If not, we thank you for your presentation MR. HAM: Thank you. MEMBER HORNING: Oh, I will correct myself Mr.. Chair Person. It was pointed out to me it was our legal notice that mentions the westerly front to the property line. Not, not the Notice of Disapproval. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Anybody else like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 8 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals 6:50 P.M. - Appl. No. 4672 -DOUGLAS & AMY ROSE A Variance is requested under the Southold Town Zoning Code, Article XXIV based upon the December 3, 1998 Notice of Disapproval which states that the proposed addition does not meet the requirements of Section 100-244 for a required 15 ft. side yard setback. Location of Property: 500 Maple Lane, Southold~ N.Y.; County Parcel 1000-64-01-20. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a request from an agent for the applicant that this hearing be postponed or rescheduled until May 20th. I'll act on that postponement. Is there anybody here would like to speak on behalf of Rose? I can open the hearing. OK, I'll waive the legal notices, I'll open the hearing and I'll offer a Resolution to reschedule it until May 20th. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 9 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals 6:51 P.M. - Appl. 4673 - JOHN LANG (HANS LANG) A Variance is requested under the Southold Town Zoning Code, Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.4, based upon the January 28, 1999 Notice of Disapproval which states that the proposed shed is in the front yard area. Location of Property: 190 Osseo Avenue, Southold, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-87-3-20. CHAIRiVL&N GOEHRINGER: We have a request for a postponement on this one also and I'll do the same. I will open this hearing, waive legal notice, reading of legal notices, or the legal notice, and postpone this. I guess we'll postpone this until May 20th also. I offer that as a Resolution, ladies and gentlemen. MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page l0 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals 6:53 - Appl. No. 4674 - STEPHEN FRIEDMAN A Variance is requested under the Southold Town Zoning Code, Article XXIV, Section 100-244B, based upon the January 8, 1999 Notice of Disapproval which states that the proposed addition/alteration to an existing dwelling is less than 25 feet for total combined side yards. Location of Property: 2140 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck, N.Y.; County Parcel 1000-123-04-4.1. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey and then we have an actual survey on behalf of John Metzger, indicating side yard at one point of 4-1/2 feet and at the other side of 15 feet, total combined side yard of 19-1/2 feet proposed and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. I see you have some green cards for us. You are Mr. Ludlow? MR. LUDLOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do? MR. LUDLOW: Fine. How are you this evening? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good, thank you. Anything else he owes us? P/T SECY. FARRELL: No, just one card. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just green card, very good. you. Just state your name for the record, Sir. Thank MR. LUDLOW: I'm Tom Ludlow and I'm acting on behalf of Stephen and Barbara Friedman for some additions and renovations proposed to their residence at 2140 Deep Hole Drive. As you just stated, the reason we needed a, we're asking for relief, side yard relief because of the combined side yards being less than 25 feet. The reason we feel that the relief isn't too drastic and the neighbors should be rewarded is go on the original setbacks would be 10 or 15, 10 and 15 and we do have that on the side we want to add on to. Of course the existing side of 4-1/2 feet is what is causing the problem. And also the fact that the house is built not parallel with the lot lines or either lot line and the actual relief as far as square footage of the house is really quite small. It's just a corner sticking over or infringing on that. And, to change though, even if it's a small part of the house, to change it is a really drastically changing the whole thought of the house. We'd never get the three rooms downstairs facing the water. You know it would be terribly disappointing to them and basically in a nut shell like I said, you know, we feel it's not too much to ask and that's why we decided to ask. Thank you. Page 11 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRIVLt~N GOEHRINGER: Mr. Ludlow, we have a non precedence that you must' leave .one side yard opened and for the record, 15 feet is adequate in my opinion. The purpose of that is to of course gain access to the rear of the property which in this case is the water side. So, I do not have a particular problem with your application or your agent, your owner's application. We'll start with Mr. Homing. Do you have any questions of this applicant? MEMBER HORNING: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Just a fact question. I gather that the house which is really a rather old cottage is going to turn into a full blown two story a - MR. LUDLOW: Yeah, a two story house about 1800 sq. ft. gigantic but a it's not going to get any larger. Not MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, the house lined up next To the yellow one next door right now looks a little like David and Goliath. I guess David is going to grow. MR. LUDLOW: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No questions. We'll see what develops throughout the hearing and we thank you for coming in Sir. MR. LUDLOW: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Yes, ma'am. Just come up and state your name for the record please. MS. VILLANO: My name is Elaine Villano and I live in the Goliath house, the yellow house next door. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I didn't say that. MS. VILLANO: I'm not really for it or against it. Originally I'm sure you're aware that was one large piece of property and at that time I probably should of voiced my opinion, but I didn't, so that property was divided into two lots. I ended up with a shed 3-1/2 Page 12 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals feet from my property line. I also ended up with a dock on my side of the property which was on the other side prior. So, I'm a little concerned of what's going on here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I just ask a question? You're on 5.1 or 3? You're on 5.1, tax map what 5. what? You have the larger lot which is like 32 feet on the run? 107 feet or something like that on the run? MEMBER COLLINS: She has the little one. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Oh, she has the one on the other side? MS. VILLANO: And we renovated about ten years ago and we stayed within our original cottage and went up. What concerns me is there's 4-1/2 feet from their house to the property line and as I spoke with Mrs. Friedman, she explained to me that that part of the house is going to be straightened out and therefore, it's on an angle so the house closest to the part of the house closest to the water, is going to get closer to my house. My house is l0 feet from the property line and that house is going up. I don¢'t want it to be like Queens or - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Did you see the plans? MS. VILLANO: I did and Mrs. Friedman could not tell me how many feet closer to my property that house was going to come as it gets straightened out. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And that really isn't. Come up and we'll show you. I'm not pushing this application. I'm just saying, it really isn't closer to your property because it's going to be That's why I asked which side your on. MS. VILLANO: Well, the way she spoke, that they are going to have to come out. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It doesn't appear to be the, this does not appear to be the .case here from this footprint, you see. MS. VILLANO: Is the house going to come out? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: and show this nice lady. Why don't you come up here Mr. Ludlow MS. VILLANO: to make sure. I don't mean to give you a hard time. I just want MR. LUDLOW: The plans we have now, there's no building on this side of the hoUse at all. Page 13 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals MS. VILLANO: same walk. On the yellow side? You're going to keep it in the MR. LUDLOW: The plans are being altered somewhat. sure, never going to get any closer than it is now. But for MS. VILLANO: It's going to stay at that angle? MR. LUDLOW: It might get bumped out a little up here but it would never become within 4-1/2 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, that's an important consideration. So, you're going to have - MEMBER TORTORA: We're considering these plans and once we consider these plans they're not to be altered. MR. LUDLOW: Oh, OK. MEMBER TORTORA: If we approve this plan, this is the plan we approve. You don't go back and alter it later. So, if you have plans to alter it, let us know. MR. LUDLOW: I will definitely let them know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well why don't you just - MR. LUDLOW: As of right now, there's nothing altered and I don't know if - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why don't ~you do this before we close the hearing. I don't mean to stop you. I apologize. Why don't you go call them and tell them this factor, OK, we'll recess this for 20 minutes. You come back and you tell. us so not to hold up the calendar if there's going to be a change on this lady's side because - MR. LUDLOW: They're out of town. of the architect themselves. I might be able to get a hold MEMBER TORTORA: We'll hold the hearing open then. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, we'll hold it open until a - MEMBER TORTORA: We'll hold it open because I would like to know if a, I'm a little concerned about 4-1/2 feet in that corner period and I'd like to see at least 8 feet back period. MR. LUDLOW: So nothing happening on that side, right? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, nothing happening on that side. MEMBER HORNING: It's one thing to be in th~ corner, it's another thing to be the whole side of the house. Page 14 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. LUDLOW: Yeah, that's my argument on the other side, isn't it? It's only the corner (chuckle). MEMBER HORNING: But you're further away from the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MEMBER TORTORA: Yeah, and that is very close points, the distance between you and me. MS. VILLANO: Can I ask another question, or? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: record. Yes, just state your name again for the MS. VILLANO: Elaine V I L L A N O. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is again, Mrs. Villano speaking. MS. VILLANO: As far as the plans go, can I ask, I mean if there's windows on that side of the property? OK, that's. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: windows. You can ask for screening if there are MS. VILLANO: Screening? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, trees, bushes. MS. VILLANO: Oh, OK, got you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't mean that sarcastically. MS. VILLANO: No, no, I just wasn't sure what you meant by screening. OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MR. LUDLOW: Well I would just say one last thing. I would go almost, I want to completely speak on their behalf but these changes that they were considering on that side they basically came about because we're going to be doing much more work to the house to bring it up to a Flood Zone Code. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: you going to elevate it? That was my question. How high are MR. LUDLOW: We have to go up 8 inches and we're going to go up about I foot 9 or something like that. I'm pretty sure. But, suspect that she won't make any changes if it's going to effect the area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could we see a full set of plans? Page 15 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. LUDLOW: Yes, tonight? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, not tonight. We'll hold it off until the next meeting and we'll see a full set of plans. This lady will be able to see a full set of plans and then we will, you know, we'll close the hearing at that point and make a decision. MEMBER TORTORA: Can I say something? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, sure. MEMBER LUDLOW: There's a couple of things with this close setback. You may have access for a fire truck' on that side. You couldn't fight the fire without going on to your neighbor's property on that side, 4-1/2 feet, nor could you even get a ladder there to repair the house. So, in my personal view I'd like to see you come back with the plans with at least 8 foot from that property line. MR. LUDLOW: You mean demolish part of the house? MEMBER TORTORA: How much of this is this being built? MR. LUDLOW: Well the addition is all on the, as is, it's all on this side. This whole side as existing, Now we're raising that existing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How high are you raising? MR. LUDLOW: I'd say about 1 foot 9 or something like that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, so I mean it's still going to be a one story structure? MR. LUDLOW: Yeah we're just, I mean, adding to the foundation to put on to. MEMBEI~ COLLINS: Excuse me Mr. Chairman. This drawing Mr. Ludlow that shows in hatched marks, where you want to put the addition on to which we're seeking var, you're seeking a variance, it also shows that the area we were just talking about on Mrs. Villano's side of the property is to become a two story. That's, that's why I was making the comment about David and Goliath. MEMBER HORNING: The map shows that~ MR. LUDLOW: I don't even see that. Where did that come from? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Actually we're dealing with three maps. One has the original footprint, one is the survey and one is a penned in map. MEMBER TORTORA: Loft, you're looking at the faxed one. Page 16 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: The one with hatched marks. Yes, which shows that on that side of the property they're not changing the profile of the house, but going up and adding a second floor. MR. LUDLOW: Yeah, on the side that I'm asking relief for you mean? MEMBER COLLINS: No, to your Read the legend. MR. LUDLOW: Area of new second. Well that's. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, no. MR. LUDLOW: why. I mean that's completely wrong. don't know CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why don't you do this first. Why don't you give us the best map you can, footprint map and then a copy of the plan so that we know exactly what we have. MR. LUDLOW: I can do that. MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Surely. MEMBER DINIZIO: right now? That I'm to understand that the 4-1/2 feet exists CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is correct. MR. LUDLOW: Correct. MEMBER DINIZIO: So, it's not the subject of this? MEMBER TORTORA: No. MR. LUDLOW: Right. MEMBER DINIZIO: The subject of this variance is the fact that both side yards don't add up to 25 feet? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is correct. MS. VILLANO: Plus I'm questioning if they're going to come out anymore on that side which Mrs. Friedman had said, they thought they would come out anywhere in our conversation which ! like Mrs. Friedman by the way. They're very nice neighbors. Maybe two to four feet, she wasn't sure and I'm just concerned about it. MR. LUDLOW: Well that's understandable. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes. I mean I can say this, you can't go any further than that. He's not asking us for that. He can't possibly do that. page 17 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals MS. VILLANO: happen. But I wanted to be sure that that's not going to CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We will make sure. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah, don't worry that's - MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah, but we want to be sure obviously whatever you get from us, is based on what they actually are going to do. MEMBER DINIZIO.' Well then I want to comment about the fact that we were going to require this applicant to come back with an 8 foot on that side. I don't think it's entirely - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is one request from one property owner. I mean one Member. MEMBER TORTORA: Jim, on that map I was looking at the other map and I thought that was one of the MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, so we're not going to require him to do that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. MEMBER TORTORA: Can't do that on that side. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, it's preexisting. MEMBER TORTORA: Preexisting. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so we'll recess this. May is going to be quite some calendar I can tell you. So, we'll recess this, we'll see. Is there anybody else on the dais would like to speak to the agent to the applicant? Anybody in the audience like to'speak? Yes. Mrs. Sidlauska, how are you tonight? MRS. SIDLAUSKAS: the street. My name is Debbie Sidlauska and I live across CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You'd better spell that. MRS. SIDLAUSKAS; S I D L A U S K A S and I live across the street from the applicants and my biggest objection when I first saw the plans was that my property was sold to me as water view and it's being chiseled away little by little by all the Goliaths in the neighborhood. That's a big concern of mine. I don't know ff there is any zoning on the books that - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: there. Not unless you have a scenic easement Page 18 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals MRS. SIDLAUSKAS: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: over someone's property. Not unless you have a scenic easement MRS. SIDLAUSKAS: I see. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm sorry to say. MRS. SIDLAUSKAS: I know because I no longer going to have water view. I'm going to have skyline and that to me is very upsetting and it's happening all up and down that street and I'm sure this isn't the form but I would like it to be put on the record that - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MRS. SIDLAUSKAS: It upsets me that people come and they buy these teeny little cottages and they're allowed to make these huge mansions on these small pieces of property and maybe somewhere down the road before it's too late that the zoning could be changed, that they can't go beyond the footprint that they have or that it can't occupy more than a certain percentage of their piece of property. - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, that is still in effect. not exceed the lot coverage. This does MRS. SIDLAUSKAS: What is the percentage? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have no idea. MEMBER DINIZIO: 20% is the maximum he can build. exceed that by any means. He doesn't CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: He doesn't exceed that or else he would be denied for that by the Building Inspector. MRS. SIDLAUSKAS: OK, I wasn't aware that there was a - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, and he would also, there's also a setback requirement and he falls within that for the creek. MRS. SIDLAUSKAS: them. I think we ought to change that or look at CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're certainly welcome to discuss that with the legislative body, there's no question about it. MRS. SIDLAUSKAS: OK. That's all I have to say, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you for your opinion. Anybody else like to speak? Hearing no comment I'll make a motion rescheduling this to May 20th. Anybody want to second that? Page 19 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of APpeals MEMBER COLLINS: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Thank you for coming. Page 20 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals 7:12 P.M. - Appl. No. 4678 - VINCENT & LINDA BA.SILICE Variances are requested under the Southold Town Zoning Code, Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4B and Article IliA, SeCtion 100-30A.3, based upon two February 23, 1999 Notices of Disapproval which state that the proposed raised brick patio is less than 75 feet from bulkhead and will exceed 20% lot coverage. Location of Property: 3255 Bay Shore Road, Greenport~ N.Y.; County Parcel 1000-53-6-8. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the outline of the brick patio and we have seen the site. I believe it should be Dr. is that correct? DR. BASILICE: Correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Doctor, how are you tonight? DR. BASILICE: OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Have you brought us any green cards or anything? And the Posting of the Affidavit? DR. BASILICE: Yes I have the Posting of the Affidavit and cards, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How are you tonight? Dr. BASILICE: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us? . E' Well. the, first of all in the paper it is listed as a DR BASILIC · -.; ...... ~ ~ I think that's important. ete atto. it s prick ai~u ~. concr P ___ lv have about 42 feet from the This is an older house and we o_n!a ..... ~.~__ +~ to the back of the house. TniS pa~o Goes come out ~,-um ~,~ water - .... ~ .... ~ --ro~ertv slopes c~own aha 1 house. It's attache~ to tn[ noun?, a~"~a~2e ~f that slope to the believe you all had seen ~. ou , _ .~ property that's why we .had elevated ~t up a httle b~t Now, the property when we had d~scussed doing the patio, we did have one of the Building Inspectors, Mike Verity come out to the house and we discussed it with my wife that we were putting a brick and sand and he didn't think it would be a problem at all even requiring a petit. But he said as long as it's in Hne ~th the other patios that are on the block, it shouldn't be a problem at all and that's how we acted, you know doing the patio and the reason why we want to do the patio of t~s size is because last summer ~th the bugs, my ~fe, and my daughter, are very sensitive to the bug bites and both of them got very sick last summer. And, when we discussed our options it was totally decreasing the ~ass surface and maybe we'd get a ~ttte less bugs, other~se it's almost impossible for them to go outside and as a physician I'm telling you the bites page ~.l Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals are horrendous. We didn't want to put glutens on the, you no, insecticides on the grass because I think that would be more of an environmental problem with it running down into the water. So we thought that the patio especially since it was a non permanent quote, "non permanent structure" would be a good alternative. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In reference to your question regarding the legal notice and the way it was written and such, I, I think that the borders around the sand area to contain the sand I think are the issue that, not issue of, you know, concern, but, a issue that it's not just brick, you know, you have to have something to contain the brick when you lay it in sand, and you either do that with railroad ties. In your case you did, you know, in, in the, in the type and manner which you have it presently done without the brick. I mean the sands in there but, the brick isn't. DR. BASILICE: I think he put some kind of glue or something. He had said, you know, into the footing. That's, that's what I was told. I said, you sure this is not concrete? He Said, absolutely not. It's some kind of a, like a glue. It's like a 5200, something like that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, alright. about lot coverage? Anything like that? Anything you want to say DR. BASILICE: I think that it's a, you know, it's a nice patio and it's certainly going to enhance the community. When we bought this house a few years back, this house was like a haunted house on the block and we've only tried to improve it and I don't see this being a problem with our neighbors. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. DR. BASILICE: I would you know, respectfully request that we · would be granted the variance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we're going to start with Mr. Dinizio. Any questions of the doctor? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don't have a question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: I just like to get a little clearer on exactly what happened first. I realize Dr. Basilice, could you tell me how you pronounce your last name. DR. BASILICE: B A S I L I C E. MEMBER COLLINS: Basilice. That you were before this Board three years ago when, I guess 'when you just first bought the house, you were improving it and I of course wasn't on the Board, so, I only know what I saw on the record and a, I, I, what the record shows is, that at that time you were a, had ~sought of laid Page 22 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals out the concept of the patio and the Board commented that since you were considering building it at grade, that a it was not going to be an issue from our point of view. Now, the next thing that has happened is, you have these a, a, Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval for lot coverage and setback but, your, your a project is well underway and I'm, I'm just trying to figure out you know, kind of which came first. DR. BASILICE: OK, at the time we had plans to expand the house to make it a Goliath and to push the house out about 4-1/2 feet towards the water and at that time we were raising the house, making the house much larger than it is. We decided to keep it as a David and we never did that project. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, that's why I couldn't find the 49~ foot setback on the survey. DR. BASILICE: We never did that at all. MEMBER COLLINS: You never did it, OK. DR. BASILICE: No, it was never done. So, in, instead we decided to just do the patio and we just improved the existing shell of the house, so nothing else has been done and we'd like to keep it as a cottage because that's you know, I think the, in the spirit of where it should be. So, that other project was never done and a the patio that was originally approved was going to be a flat patio because we were actually going to raise the terrain up a foot. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah. DR. BASILICE: My neighbors on the one side they have, they're about a foot and a half higher than us, so we were going to try and bring the grade up .even and that was going to compensate the slope. Right now we have a slope on the, on for our runoff from the rain and the water. It goes back down towards the bulkhead. MEMBER COLLINS: Hm, hm. So did this patio project get started and you then went to get a building permit for it?, and is that - DR. BASILICE: No, we didn't get a, well when we, excuse me, when my wife spoke to the Building Inspector, we had to put a little shed that we had to get a permit for and he came to inspect that it was anchored properly. She asked him at that time, we were going to contemplate putting a patio up and would we need a permit. MEMBER COLLINS: Hm, hm. DR. BASILICE: He said no, as long as you keep it in line, it would not be a problem. MEMBER COLLINS: I know you said that before. page 23 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals DR. BASILICE: And then another Building Inspector had come down and said no because of the elevation that we would require a permit and he stopped the job at that time. MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, OK. so - DR. BASILICE: left on it. I think the jobber has, he's got about three days MEMBER COLLINS: OK, thank you. I just wanted to figure out what the time line was as it were. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: Is the portion of the patio that is closest to the house is that at grade level of the base of the house? DR. BA. SILICE: Well the whole property slopes down. It probably comes out about, at the grade of the house, it's probably about a, I don't know, 10 or 12 feet. And it slopes rather, rather abruptly. MEMBER HORNING: It's sloping towards the house? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. DR. BASILICE: No, it's sloping towards the water. MEMBER HORNING: Oh, OK. So, is, is there, where the p~tio is attached to the house, is that at the same grade as the rest of the house? DR. BASILICE: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: I mean you're not building it up or - DR. BASILICE: Oh no, that's the same, yeah that's the same. It comes out, there was a stoop there when you went outside. There was a straight patio so that's at that grade but then it slopes very abruptly towards the water. MEMBER HORNING: Now you were mentioning the water flowing towards the bulkhead, so, rain water. What direction does that happen? DR. BASILICE: Right now as I say, it comes right the way it is right down towards the water now. It's still going to be the same. We're not really affecting it. It's going to be about 15 or 20 feet to the water and there's grass there on the other side. Ail this is really doing is trying to just decrease the grass space, so that you can sit outside without getting eaten up. Page 24 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. We'll see what develops throughOut the hearing. We thank you for your presentation. DR. BASILICE: OK, thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of the application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Seeing no hands, any further comments from the Board? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is for everybody's benefit including the doctor. We will probably have a Special Meeting next week. Because of the Agenda tonight, I doubt if we're going to .get into any decisions. So, we will let you know by written form when we make the decision. You're welcome to call the office. We haven't set that meeting to date, OK, when it will be. But, it will probably be sometime the latter part of next week where we'll have a Special Meeting to make these decisions, OK. Thank you very much. Page 25 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals 7:21 P.M. - Appl. No. 4680 - RAYMOND & BARBARA TERRY A Variance is requested under the Southold Town Zoning Code, Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4B, based upon the Notice of Disapproval which states that a deck is proposed to be located within 75 feet of existing bulkhead. Location of Property: 610 Jockey Creek Drive, Southold; 1000-70-5-11. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a sketch of the survey indicating the deck at its proposed location attached to the house at 62 feet from the bulkhead. And how are you tonight Sir? Would you state your name for the record since we have the official record keeper here. MR. BROWN: Robert Brown, Architect for the Terrys. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us? PT-SECY. FARRELL:: We need the affidavits. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, yeah, we need, do you have any Affidavits of Posting or anything from the, from the Terrys? MR. BROWN: A by mistake the Affidavit of Posting, the original was delivered to the Trustees at their hearing yesterday. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, boy. OK. MR. Bt{OWN: that'd alright ? So I can get that for you hopefully tomorrow, if CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What else do we need from him? PT-SECY. FARRELL: Just that and the original Affidavit of Certified Receipts and card. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You faxed us copies of green cards today, did you not? MR. BROWN: No, I delivered green cards by hand today. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, you did? MR. BROWN: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER.' OK. Yes, I have them right here, then we're MR. BROWN: I'll get the affidavit tomorrow if that's OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: this done right. We get into big trouble if we don't get Page 26 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. BROWN: Speaking of the Trustees they waived the application last night, I believe. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. BROWN: Very simply, the Terrys would like to take advantage of their view and be able to sit out and - PT-SECY. FARRELL: Could he speak louder? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you speak a little louder Robert? MR. BROWN: Very simply, the Terrys are just looking to take advantage of the view they have on the creek and would like to be able to sit out and relax and enjoy the view. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: MR. BROWN: No it is not. CHAIRMAN GQEHRINGER: Is this an enclosed porch? It's an open deck. Is it a porch or is it a deck? MR. BROWN: It's an open deck. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's an open deck. And a, what would you say the elevation would be at its farthest point as the property falls away in reference to height? Any guess estimate on it?' MR. BROWN: t don't believe that there is a significance slope to the site. By my recollection it may be a matter of 3, the most 4 feet above grade at its farthest point. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: At its farthest point away from the house? MR. BROWN: That would be my guess. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, alright, we'll start with Mr. Homing. Any questions of Mr. Brown? MEMBER HORNING: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: The application says, in effect, it's not much, we'd like to have it. MR. BROWN: Basically. MEMBER COLLINS: Stated my personal sense of, of looking at the plan and at looking at the property, I think it is really rather ,Page ' 27 Hearing Tr ripts 'April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals much. It's a big deck. It's 20 feet deep from the house to the outer edge and 36 feet wide and a, I guess I'd like to ask you whether I, I don't know to the extent to which your functioning as the Terrys' Agent or simply representing them here. But, it's the question I think, I think I'm alone here perhaps but I want to ask it anyway which is, would they accept a smaller deck in the sense of being less deep which would of course reduce the amount of nonconformity? It would put the outer edge of it a little bit further hack from the creek. MR. BROWN: Sure. I really can't speak for them to that question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. BROWN: They, they specifically asked me for a 20 foot deck and - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You want to call them and we'll recess the hearing? We'll leave it open 20 minutes or so. MR. BROWN: I can try to reach them. I can't make any promises though because I don't know where they are. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What was the question? MEMBER TORTORA: He should cali the builder and see if the builder have - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well we have one Member. I mean certainly we can ask that question and it depends upon unanimity you know, we need 3 votes conceivably and a, weli we'll see what develops. That's an option, we'll see, we'll let you know, OK? Thank you. Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Were you done Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No questions, OK. Let's see what develops. Anybody else like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? Does anybody other than Ms. Collins feel that a alternate relief is in proper sensor? MEMBER HORNING: I don't believe I do unless I'm convince. consider it sought of like a brick patio - I MEMBER TORTORA: I, it's, it's a minimum variance in my mind. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MEMBER TORTORA: 62 ~et. Page 28 Hearing Transcripts April 22~ 1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER HORNING: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, I guess we'll deal with it as it exists. MR. BROWN: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Hearing no further comment, I'll close the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. .page 29 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals 7:26 P.M. - Appl. No. 4665 - FRANK RAYNOR A Special Exception is requested under Article III, Section 100-31B(14) for approval of Accessory Apartment Use in applicant's existing residence at 3370 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck, N.Y.; Parcel No. 1000-107-9-15. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the applicant's survey indicating the house and most of us have seen the apartment. We have sketched the apartment which encompasses approximately all of the second floor of this house and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you tonight Mr. Raynor? MR. RAYNOR: Alright, good. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What would you like to tell us. Oh, yes, definitely we need those green cards. PT-SECY. FARRELL: Posting of the Affidavit? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. RAYNOR: There's two I didn't get back and you said you wanted these for the parking area. That's the driveway area. I'll give you a couple of those and this is the affidavits. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, great. Thank you so much. we're ready to hear why you need this apartment. OK, MR. RAYNOR: I need it for my daughter and their children and her husband. That's basically all of it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. That's cut and dry, OK. Dinizio any questions of Mr. Raynor? Mr. MEMBER DINIZIO: Did we have this application once before? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not to my knowledge. MEMBER DINIZIO: no objection to it. It seems to me I just, no, I have no, absolutely CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No, I have no questions. Page 30 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: Oh, let me interrupt myself. Do I understand that Mr. Raynor did bring something showing the parking because I know that was an issue I had asked the office to follow up. OK, fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. While Mr. Raynor is there is there anybody else would like to speak in favor? Is there anybody like to speak against? This may be the shortest hearing in history Mr. Raynor. MR. RAYNOR: Thank God. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we thank you for coming in and we thank you for your inspection and we thank you for your parking plan and we hope that a, although we're not voting on it this actual seeond~ I don't think that there's a problem with this apartment. OK? Alright. Thank you. Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor. Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. .page 31 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals 7:30 P.M. - Appli. No. 4676 - ALBERT PALUMBO Variances are requested under the Southold Town Zoning Code, Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4A(1) and Article XXIV, Section 100-244 based upon two January 12, 1999 Notices of Disapproval which state that the proposed deck addition is within 100 feet of the bluff or bank of the Long Island Sound and does not meet the requirements of Section 100-244 for total side yards of 25 feet (10 ft.) and 15 ft. each, as a minimum). Location of Property: 1095 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion, N.Y.; County Parcel 1000-21-2-14. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. On his sketch we do see the SCCM line as mentioned, OK, and we will ask you if you are Mr. Palumbo? MR. PALUMBO: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. What would you like to tell us Sir? MR. PALUMBO: We have an affidavit and we want to leave the affidavit. We want to put a little deck facing the sound to sit out there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. In normal situations this does not necessarily affect you but, we just have to tell you what our normal procedure is. We usually ask' for an evaluation of the bluff from Soil and Water Conservation, which is an Agricultural Organization which evaluates the bluff. I inadvertently asked for it and somehow the letter never got to them. We called them on the phone today and they're going to do the evaluation, OK. We of course had an application with your neighbor to the west of you, OK, a couple of years ago. MR. PALUMBO: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And a, at that time I believe the bluff really hasn't changed much. It's pretty well foliated. So, if we're just going to leave this hearing open until we get it, we'll read it into the record and then we'll close the hearing, OK. I do have to ask you, the deck is going to be remain open? MR. PALUMBO: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, and the elevation factor is approximately how high above the ground? In your opinion. MR. PALUMBO: I think about 28", 24". It's prettY level so there's not going to be any drop-off. The bluff is going to be the same. If you look at the pictures we bought it in the fifties when they originally built the house. It looks just about the same. Page 32 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Very good. Is that what you want to do Mrs. Tortora? Is that OK with you. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If we receive it within the next week, we'll be able to close the hearing at the meeting that we have when we start making decisions, OK? We just want to read that. If there's anything significant we will extend it from that particular point on to the next hearing calendar, but I don't think that we're necessarily going to have to do that, OK; and I apologize for this inconvenience on your part. MEMBER TORTORA: We're going to recess until May 20th? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well I think we should recess it to the, I think we should set a meeting date now for next week when we have it and we'll recess it for that date and then we'll close it at that time, couldn't we? MEMBER TORTORA: It depends if we get soil and water back. We may not get it back by next week. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: you wait until May 20th? What's your timing on this deck? Can MR. PALUMBO: We applied, started this procedure November P, 2nd. It's five months to the day. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. PALUMBO: Five months to the day. A - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well why don't we do this? Why don't we close the hearing and if there's anything significant, pending the receipt of Soil and Water Conservation and if we receive anything that's different, we'll reopen the hearing and discuss it with Mr. Palumbo. MEMBER TORTORA: It's alright with me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that alright with everybody? MEMBER DINIZIO: That's fine. MEMBER HORNING: Yes, that's fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, we'll start with Mr. Homing. Any questions of Mr. Palumbo's application? MEMBER HORNING: The original house is the same? Has the same side yard setback as the proposed deck? .Page 33 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. PALUMBO: Yes. We're going to leave everything the same. I just want a little deck. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That is certainly a spectacular spot. There's no question about it. MR. PALUMBO: The view is, it's - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: Water. No, I just like to see the report from Soil and CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Ms. Collins. MEMBER COLLINS: Well I guess I'm in the minority here tonight on the depths of decks. But, I think a deck that goes 10 feet from the bluff is a, is really, is really pushing the envelope and I guess I would ask Mr. Palumbo if I were to find that some of my colleagues supported my view, whether you would a, being willing to live with a somewhat less deep deck than 15 feet? MR. PALUMBO: Sure. I just, I think it would serve no purpose if we couldn't put a little table and chairs on it. You know, it's just like a, I mean I would say it would have to be at least 9 feet from the house. For our rough calculations we had put a small table. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. I should say to you, I'm sorry, that we have revised our entire opinion regarding the construction of these decks on the water side, particularly the ones that are significantly close to the bluff. MR. PALUMBO: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And you may see in the decision certain issues recited so as no heavy machinery used to place these pilings into the ground you know, so on and so forth cause we definitely do have a concern in those areas and we had written recently, a recent decision that was quite significant in reference to the overall amount of machinery, you know, mechanized machinery that would be used. I mean in this case I'm sure you'll probably use a post hole digger yourself and dig it down and so on and so forth. MR. PALUMBO: That's exactly what we expect to do - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. PALUMO: According to that one. We wouldn't, we wouldn't be bringing any small bucket hose or anything like that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio any questions? MEMBER DINIZIO: No. Page 34 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. We thank you again Mr. Palumbo. If there's anything significant in this soil water, conservation evaluation, we will certainly afford you a copy of it anyway, you know, if we find anything significant. MR. PALUMBO. OK, so do we just wait to hear now or? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, we, we, you're welcome to call us. We will set a Special Meeting before we leave tonight and we will get together and go from there~ OK? MR. PALUMBO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would like to speak for or against? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a request from one Board Member to take a two minute recess and so would you just hold it down to 2 to 3 minutes ladies and gentlemen so we can get through with the calendar? I need a Resolution. MEMBER DINIZIO: So moved. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? BOARD MEMBERS: Aye. (Changed tape- nothing at beginning - starts at 121). ,page 35 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals 7:45 P.M. - Appli. No. 4679 - JACKIE & JON ROGERS A Variance is requested under the Southold Town Zoning Code, Article XXIV, Section 100-244 based upon the March 2, 1999 Notice of Disapproval which states that the proposed addition is located at less than 35 feet from the rear property line. Location of property: 9220 Main Road, East Marion, N.Y.; County parcel 1000-31-8-4. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey which was produced by Roderick Van Tuyl, P.C., copy of a sketch indicating the proposed addition which falls within 23 feet of the westerly property at approximately 25 feet of the south easterly property line. How are you tonight Sir? Could you state your name for the record? MR. HEARD: Peter Heard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And what would you like to tell us about this application? MR. HEARD: Well a - PT-SECY. FARRELL: We need green cards. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: tonight ? Oh, do you have any cards for us PT-SECY. FARRELL: One green card. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: One green card. MR. HEARD: No, it didn't come back. I did find, my wife knows those people though and they're weekenders. They haven't been out for a couple of weekends and have not gotten their mail. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. HEARD: I was always under the thought that we could choose, I always thought we would have the ability to choose what we want to be side or rear. I understand that that's not the case, that's fine. There's really no other options to go to putting this addition on the house. There's two fronts, both of which have porches. It would just look horrible to kind of put it on one of those sides. And then, on the south side of the house the cesspools are located there. So, there's really no other way. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And what's the purpose of the addition? MR. HEARD: It's going to be a workroom, art room, studio type. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Basically like a shed roof. OK, and I see it's one story in height. Page 36 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. HEARD: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. questions of this gentleman? We'll start with Mr. Dinizio, any MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, I have no questions. I realized that I overlooked something in my file because I was going to ask whether it was a one or two story addition because what it's butting onto in the house is one story now, right? MR. HEARD: Yes. It's a shed roof. Almost a flat roof that is so we want to move it higher below the second floor windows from the roof. But, it's a one story addition. MEMBER COLLINS: OK, I will just volunteer that I have been sought of sounding skeptical in certain ways over the past couple of applications. I have no problems with this one, so, let that be known. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No problems. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, while you're standing there we'll see if there's anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? It looks like we have another pretty fast hearing tonight Sir. Seeing no hands I thank you for coming in and we will entertain this if not tonight, next week and we will send you the hard copy which we must file in a certain amount of days after we make the decision with the Town Clerk and then you can proceed back to the Building Department. MR. HEARD: tonight? OK, so then it's not at all possible to get permission CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You never know. It depends upon how late we go. But, usually we don't talk about these applications alright until we actually get to this form. So, we really didn't know how each one of us felt, OK? We also have a situation where we don't necessarily make a decision unless the decision who the person that has this particular decision it's their responsibility. One of the five Board Members here, OK, has it written and we then vote on it as it has been written. We do the facts and findings ourselves and then we turn it over to the secretary, alright? page 37 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. HEARD: OK, you've got some paperwork to do then? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. HEARD: OK. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're welcome. Hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minute for Resolution. Page 38 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals 7:50 P.M. - Appl. No. 4684 - SHAWN TULLY A Variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4A(1) based upon the March 12, 1999' Notice of Disapproval which states that an addition is proposed at less than 100 feet from the top of the bluff of bank of the Long Island Sound. Location of Property: 2840 Stars Road, East Marion, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-22-3-1. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have a copy - rather large copy, of not only a survey but a topo map of the property which is also rather a spectacular piece of property overlooking Long Island Sound and on the Long Island Sound and we have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area and an evaluation from an engineer from Charles R. Cuddy and an evaluation from Soil and Water Conservation. Mr. Cuddy, we are ready. MR. CUDDY: I represent Shawn Tully who is here tonight. He is the purchaser of this site. Also here is Mr. Spitilere who is the contractor and builder. This is a site in East Marion. As you know this is about 12-1/2 acres. It has an existing house. What I 'would like to do, is hand up as one unit some additional exhibits for the file. ~Iohn Raynor, who is our engineer, unfortunately couldn't be here tonight. He had a deviated septum, and he just had surgery on it a couple days ago. But he did write a short letter for me this afternoon just in response to the Soil and Conservation statement. I'd like to put that in the record. I'd would also like to put in the record the building permit which has been going forever. This is a copy from 97 and we just renewed it again. But it shows that the original building permit was in 1991 and the final thing I'd like to hand out is a front elevation of the property done by the architect for Mr. Tully. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. CUDDY: If you've seen this site,, besides the fact that it is a magnificent view of the sound, and it goes both east and west along the sound shore, we note that the bluff area down to the toe is completely foliated. It has also sorts of vegetation on it and Mr. Raynor and I walked down the path that's there and both of us, particularly Mr. Raynor, the engineer, there was no indication of any destabilization that would occur from the proposed 20 foot addition. The reason for this 20 foot addition is that this house was remarkably built not looking at the sound but going the other way. It probably was built on the idea that we would avoid any of the bad effects of the sound and thereby some how you wouldn't get any of the benefits of the sound either. The house has essentially been abandoned for a period of time. The builder (sic), (owner) died several years ago and the bank, Bridgehampton Bank has been holding on to it. Mr. Tully very much would like to go ahead but he'd like to have a house that he can use on the sound. To have that house, to use it appropriately he needs to go 20 feet into the bluff area. The first map that was done suggested that it might be Page 39 Hearing Transcripts April 9~2, 1999 - Board of ApPeals 30 feet into the bluff area. That's not so. That was a different line that was looked at. The actual bluff line and the worst part of the bluff line, we're back 80 feet. If you look to the west you're actually back more than 80 feet because the bluff line goes closer to the water. So we're really 20 feet at the point and perhaps as little as 15 or 10 feet at the far end that we are requesting a variance for that distance. I don't believe in looking at the neighborhood and I've been there a number of times, this will have any adverse effect on the neighbors. It's not something that we created that we had the house - the house has essentially been abandoned. To use it, to use it properly and architecturally make some esthetic use of it we have to go out roughly 20 feet to bring the roof line so that it looks decent and by the way, we're not raising the roof line, we're just following the existing roof line that's there. This is essentially a one story addition. But, I would think that at this point, there is no adverse effect either bluff stabilization wise or . the amount of the variance that we seek which is as I said between probably 15 to 20 feet at the most and I would ask the Board at this point to recognize that it also several years ago granted to the west of this variance, variance either 4098 which essentially is on top of the bluff virtually. This one is set back a good distance. There are two concerns that have been voiced I think, by the Soil and Conservation people and also by Mr. Raynor. Those concerns had to do with the runoff. There is runoff from the roof that certainly that can be taken care of by gutters and putting it into the ground. There is some concern about the line to the east which is really the path down the bluff because that's eroded.' But that can be taken care of quite easily by raising the grade at that site and pushing the water back instead of letting it go forward and I think Mr. Raynor recognizes that and also the Soil and Conservation people. So I think that this is appropriate and I would ask the Board to approve it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If I for some reason missed the issue, is there any attempt on the applicant's part, this is not a sarcastic statement, this is a pragmatic statement, OK, to rid the lip of the bluff or the top of the bluff of those trees that have been cut, whati what's going to happen there? Is there going to be any change in that? Is anything going to occur there? MR. CUDDY: I don't know when the trees were cut down, but what you're talking about, I assume that they're trying to clean that area somewhat but, the CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: know. Because, that, that's a concern, you MR. CUDDY: That wasn't done by this applicant. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I know. But I'm just saying, is he going to do anything to change that situation, because that would certainly have an effect upon the stability of the top of the bluff. Page 40 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. CUDDY: No, I don't think he's going to take out trees, but I think he would certainly for me, if I were doing that, I would at least clean that area because it's unsightly at this point. But I don't think he's going to rip things out if that's what you're talking about. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, Alright, we'll start with Mr. Homing. the applicant? that's a concern definitely. Questions of the attorney for MEMBER HORNING: Can you describe the foundation of this addition where it will be placed on? MR. CUDDY: We think it's probably going to be cinder block foUndation. So, it's not going to be poured concrete and it may be just a slab as opposed to an actual foundation. Mr. Spitiliere is here and he ,can perhaps describe it better than I can. But I know the Board has concern about bringing heavy equipment on the site, you voiced that previously. We don't anticipate that that's going to be necessary to do this kind of foundation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MEMBER HORNING: Can we find out- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MEBER HORNING: If it will be a slab or, or - MR. CUDDY: Oh, sure, he's right here. here, would you get up and state your name? Mr. Tully's right CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Go ahead, state your name. MR. TULLY: I'm Shawn Tully. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do? MR. TULLY: Yeah, the plan is just to put in a very simple 20 x 42' feet loggia, tkat we're using the existing roof line it would be a cinder block structure, a lot of windows, just built on a slab. So, it would be very, very, simple. The idea would be to recapture the views out on the sound that you can't get now because the house is completely oriented toward looking out the back toward the woods and not toward the sound. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So at the most you would bring in a back hoe, I'm not answering the question for him, but I'm asking the question. The most you would bring in probably a back hoe to cut that because you're going to have to go at least 36" down into grade which is 'what the Town requires to put that cement block wall in? MR. TULLY: Right. Page 41 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And regardless if you do a monolithic pour after that, meaning in the basement, you know, or, if you attempt to go to a first floor level above that, but leaving the basement, you know, with a monolithic pour or with a poured floor, sort of speak? MR. TULLY: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: be doing? That would be the most that you would MR. TULLY: well. Yeah, I believe so. Joe is going to address that as MR. SPITILIERE: Joe Spitiliere, Spitiliere Construction. I was the .previous builder on the job. I'm alive, you can see that. The owner isn't though. MR. SPITILIERE: From what we understand at this point, I don't have a detailed plan, but the plans that I know of, in speaking to the architect will be as Mr. Tully said, probably on a slab. We're only pgoing to excavate down about three feet below grade. And, as a habit, I generally when we're in areas like that anyway, we'll set out hay bales and a fence if necessary to prevent the equipment from going where they shouldn't be. But we do have plenty of room that's already cleared, that should not be a problem as far as our working in that area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What's the overcut that you have to do usually? MR. SPITILERE: I have worked as close as 5 feet when I had to. That's pretty close. I wouldn't want to do it again, but, we can if we have to. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 5 to 6 feet then? MR. SPITILERE: Safely I'd say 10 feet would be more around, by safely, I mean with the equipment and everything. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. SPITILERE: There won't, we don't expect that there will be any heavy equipment in there. Maybe a small backhoe even.i The block is laid by hand. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. SPITILERE: We don't have to overcut quite as drastically either with block as we do with a (unfinished statement). Page 42 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The footing has to be put in though by a cement truck. Isn't that correct? MR. SPITLIERE: It's a better pour. But, it can be done by hand. But we generally prefer it that way. There again, the cement truck's only about, I think, a maximum maybe 8 foot wide. It does allow it to get around to the side if need be, or in worst case scenario we could go around on the east side of the building and bring the truck up on that side. So, approaching both ends on east and west, not going to the north to make the pour with the extended shoots. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: there's no question about it. It certainly would be recommended, MR. SPITLIERE: Well it could be done. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we thank you. MR. SPITLIERE: Well, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: (Hesitated) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Did you want Mr. Cuddy? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. I guess, you know, having read the Soil and Water Conservation Report, they have very definite concerns, and to some extent your engineer has answered them. I don't know in their report, they said "calculations would have to be shown with sufficient capacity within the depression that runoff water could be adequately conveyed to that depression." I don't know if he's done that or not. MR. CUDDY: No, Mr. Raynor I believe that there was plenty of area and there was a (coughing) that could be pitched back essentially to allow the water to, to gather. He didn't know that it would be necessary until he read the report and that's why he responded the way he did. But, he didn't believe that it was really necessary to provide a specific calculation, it's a large area and he just said he pitched it back and you would have the water gather instead of going down. MEMBER TORTORA: How large is the lot? MR. CUDDY: 12-1/2 acres. MEMBER TORTORA: One of the things that we're required to look out under Town Law as you know, is, is there an alternate location on the property so that the addition wouldn't require a variance? MR. CUDDY: It would be very hard I believe to, that's what I was saying before, to place this at any other site.: W. hat we're doing is Page 43 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals trying to make the house, a usable hoUse at the sound and if you've seen the house, the front of it is corridor; it's not a room so that you're really going down a hallway and it was done on the basis that' all of the interior would be away from the sound and would have a sort of winter-proof type house, but you have no exposure whatsoever. So, to do it any other way, would be very difficult to answer your question, because essentially it wouldn't have a house you could look down the sound. MEMBER TORTORA: I don't have any other questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: Just a fact question to pursue what you were sayh~g. I was really looking forward to the chance to go up there and look at the house, but I worked on that combination lock for five or ten minutes and gave up. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Did you get up there (to Member Tortora)? MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: Looking, however, (interrupted)- CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Why don't we do this. Why don't we schedule an appointment after this so that you two ladies could meet either Mr. Tully or Mr. Spitiliere, one of them up there, so that you can - MEMBER TORTORA: Either that or teach us how to glide- MR. SPITLIERI: We'd be happy to, sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins. Excuse me, I didn't mean to stop you MR. CUDDY: What we had done, we had indicated to the Board's secretary, that the broker's were available to go out with you. I don't know if that communication reached you. MEMBER COLLINS: problem. Oh, I only got the combination. That's no CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I did the walk, but I needed it. MEMBER COLLINS: ;.~ ~No, all I wanted to ask, not having seen the house is, there's this~ not aerial photo in Mr. Raynor's report and all those windows that I'm looking at facing the sound are a corridor. MR. CUDDY: That's a corridor. house. That's the remarkable thing of the MEMBER COLLINS: That's extraordinary. Thank you. extraordinary, it's absolutely Page 44 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No questions. We thank you Mr. Cuddy and we'll see what develops. Is there anybody else would like to 'speak? Yes, ma'am. Can I just ask you to come over here because I don't want to be in trouble with this lady (transcriber). Could we have your name for the record we'd appreciate it. MS. GOHOREL: Road. Yes, my name is Jane Gohorel. I live on Stars PT-SECY. FARRELL: How does she spell her last name? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I get it. MS. GOHOREL: And I'm one of the residents who has a beach access rights. And for the past at least three years, it's been impossible, almost impossible to use the pathway that formerly went down because of erosion from the construction of this house. And I noticed, I went to the office and I got a copy of Mr. Raynor's report and on page 2, if I could just - it's a short paragraph and after stated that he really doesn't see any problem with the construction with the plan, you know, the proposed construction. He says, "the only indication of erosion that I found was in the narrow earthen pathway that leads from the easterly side of the property down to the beach. It is clear that storm water has run along that path and created a significant erosion gully which runs within the pathway for a substantial portion of its length. Independent of the issues attending the variance application, I suggest strongly that the grading at the top of the pathway be reworked to prevent storm water from flowing down the path, and that the path itself be restored carefully and Provided with diversions to disperse any storm water flow that may accumulate so that future erosion is minimized." And, that's what I'm here for. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You want that to happen? MS. GOHOREL: I want that to happen because well I'm sure that probably it'd be the best thing for the new owner anyway. MR. TULLY: Yes, so do we. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll catch up in one second. you spell your last name, Ma'am. How do MS. GOHOREL: G O H O R E L. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: much. We're glad you spelled it. Thank you so MS. GOHOREL: Thank you. Page 45 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to speak? Yes, Ma'am. MS. BROACH: My name is Dorothy Broach. I live on Stars Road also and I also have beach rights to this property. When I first bought this house in 1986 we use to go doWn to the beach very easily. You .could even ride a car down on this road that they're talking about and ever since they put the foundation in, it started to erode. Even way before the house was built. It was just a foundation for years. Just the' foundation has been there. And, right now, I would say it's impossible to use our right-of-way, and that's one of the reasons that our house, our lots are more valuable because we do have beach rights and we cannot use them. So, I would just want to say, too, that I just hope that that Will change with the owners. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else? Ms. BROACH. I have nothing to say about the extension. In fact, the house itself now, why it's on the sound I don't know because he should have the extension. MR. TULLY: Thank you, thank you very much. MR. SPITILIERE: Can I say something else? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure, Mr. Spitiliere. This is the builder. MR. SPITILIERE: It's always, one of the reasons that path is eroded is as the lady said is corrected, it's been a prolonged process in putting this house together. The original owner had put the foundation in 91 and then it sat until 97 when he hired me But, the plan has always been from the beginning, that once the job was completed or towards the end of it-least to do something with that path for the owner's benefit as much as anyone's benefit. The problem that really exhilarated the whole problem was the fact that at some point in time even though we put the gate in there to keep vehicles out, some kids, I guess, got in with motorcycles and they ran up and down the dune and they tore up all of the vegetation there and at that point it just washed right out. So, and that's also about the same time Mr. Thatcher passed away and everything stopped and so we just lost control of it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Great, thank you. Mr. Cuddy, could I just ask you a question? How would you like us to deal with this aspect? We very rarely ask your expertise, but we will at this point. In these decisions that we have been granting for the renurturing of the bluff area, again I'm asking you the question, but I'm answering it and seeing if it's paiitable to you, OK? Do you have any objection to us putting a condition that this area be renurtured? MR. CUDDY: No, not with the bluff. We intend to do that. We intend as the Lydia said when she talked about Mr. Raynor's report, and fix that path way. Again, to pitch it back, it'sjust at the edge before it starts going down the bluff so that water will Page 46 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals com~ back as opposed to going forward and so that the path will be viable, that's fine. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, great, thank you. MR. SPITILIERE: We'll actually stabilize it right in the beginning before we even start construction with hay bales. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, we'll probably require that. Thank you. Anybody else any questions on this hearing? Seeing no hands, I'll make a motion - MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: Were there any previous variances? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. MEMBER HORNING: To complete construction? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, it appears the house is within 100 feet on top of the bluff so. Because it's 20 feet so now they're encroaching 80 in, so they're 20 in the 100 foot. Is that correct? MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: again I'll make a motion later. MEMBER COLLINS: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. So again, hearing no further questions closing hearing reserving decision until ,page 47 Hearing Transcripts April- 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals 8:12 P.M. - Appl. No. 4682 - PETER & MARILYN WINTERS A Variance is requested under the Southold Town Zoning Code, Article III-A, Section 100-30A.4 (ref. 100-33) based upon the December 29, 1998 Notice of Disapproval for the reason that (a portion of) the accessory inground swimming pool is in the side yard area. 505 Cluster Avenue, Southold, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-?0-8-24. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey indicating the approximate placement of the pool at 10 feet from the property line and 53 from the rear yard and a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you tonight? Would you like to tell us how your pool got in the side yard? Well, a portion of it? MR. WINTERS: We, my wife came d'own and spoke to Mike Verity last fall and we explained to him what we plan to do and where we planed on putting it so long as it was enclosed and a certain distance from the west property line and a certain distance from the back property line and it was enclosed he said, it wouldn't be a problem and to come and find out, that once we had it in, it was 3 feet too far south which put it in our side yard. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Is there anybody, excuse me, any consideration of this pool would ever be enclosed for any reason? Enclosed with a roof or anything? OK, you wouldn't object to a you know, a restriction or a condition that it never be enclosed? MR. WINTERS: No problem at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: of Mr. & Mrs. Winters? We'll start with Mr. Dinizio. Questions MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're awfully quite down there tonight. MEMBER DINIZIO: Taking it all in Jerry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, I don't have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We're on a roll. Mr. Homing? MEMBER HORNING: No Sir. Page 48 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Good. Is there anybody else while these nice people are standing would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? This is the third fastest hearing tonight. We thank you very much for coming in. Do we have all the cards and everything from these nice people? PT-SECY.FARRELL: No, we don't need anything from them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We don't need anything? PT-SECY. FARRELL: We have everything. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: They passed, OK, and we will make a decision for you in the very near future. MR. WINTERS: OK, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're welcome. I need a motion to close the hearing and reserve decision. MEMBER HORNING: I'll make that motion. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 49 H. earing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals 8:16 P.M. - Appl. No. -SE-4681 - MICHAEL K. HUGHES & NORTH SHORE YACHT SALES A Special Exception is requested under the Southold Town Zoning Code, Article XX, Section 100-101B(12) for permission for retail sales, display and service of boats and marine items, an authorized use in this "B" General Business Zone District. Location of Property: 9605 Main Road (formerly Bergen Oil), Mattituck, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-122-6-12. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey indicating this piece of property is truncated by two zones, both Business Zone in the front which comprises most of the improvements on the property, not all of the improvements on the property and the residential property in the rear, OK, total size of the property is 78,822 sq. ft. and the survey was done by Howard Young, some place back in 1988 which was May 31, 1988. I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Mr. Hughes how are you tonight Sir? MR. HUGHES: How are you doing Mr. Goehringer? PT-SECY. FARRELL: Does he have his green cards, please? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, we need green cards. MR. HUGHES: I have them. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We got them, good, thank you so much. What would you like to tell us about this? MR. HUGHES: Well basically scheduled we're going to be doing just what we're doing down the road. This property I bought and I own now we significantly cleaned it up. I removed the oil tanks. It was 60,000 gallons above ground oil tanks that were in a deteriorate condition which we have removed at a considerable expense to me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Where do those oil tanks go? MR. HUGHES: They went to Gershow Recycle and we got all the correct permits from Suffolk County and Gershow whatever that it was done correctly. We've resided the building. I've cleaned up the back which was, I mean there was a lot of miscellaneous junk and stuff laying back there. It took 40, two 40 dumpsters to throw the stuff out. The garage that was in the back which was a hazard to somebody, it was rather deteriorating, we've removed that. That was ready to fall down. I was just afraid if a kid got in there or something fell over someone would get hurt. We resided the building, we've landscaped the front. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I can X that out of the survey then? Page 50 H~earing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. HUGHES: Yep, you can. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's so removed. MR. HUGHES: It' gone. We've landscaped the front, we've cleaned up the whole front, we've resided the building, cleaned up the whole back, you know, we're going to town on it, make it look nice and I want to do the right thing. I want it to be a presentable place. And we own it now, sos it's a~ you know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To what extent is the boat display going to exist in the front of the building? MR. HUGHES: If you look at the survey Mr. Goehringer, if you stand at the front of the building to the left, I have the display area marked out there. There's a 25 foot setback from the road and I landscaped that 25 foot in front. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, OK. Horning. Any questions of Mr. Hughes? We'll start with Mr. MEMBER HORNING: I'm curious Sir why you did all of this reclamation work before you have the variance for the type of business? MR. HUGHES: Well I own the property and I wanted to clean it up so I could show you people that we're trying, you know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: George I just want to mention for the record, that I did mention to a, the Board at the Special Meeting that he was, that he was forced to move out of his other site so therefore, he had to put the boats in so he had to do a certain amount of cleaning. MR. HUGHES: Mr. Goehringer, I just want to make.a point. There was boats in this property for years back there and they were just thrown in there. If you look at the way we have it set up now, it's presentable, it's neat and it's the way it shoUld be if boats are going to be Put down anywhere. But, there has been boats back there for a long time and a, I don't know if they were suppose to be there or not but just so you know that they were. That was used for a boat storage area by Dickinson Marine for many years. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm sorry. I just wanted to clear that up because he did call me and say that listen I had to put these boats up. I said, well you have to do what you have to do. Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I'll wait and see what happens. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: I gather that the a tenancy of Allstate, the Allstate Agency in the frame building is not going to endure? Page 51 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. HUGHES: No. MEMBER COLLINS: When their lease is up? MR. HUGHES: Their lease is up in December. But there, I think might helve found a place and they'll be moving out. MEMBER COLLINS: Now, the property is a,, as the Chairman mentioned reading the facts is, basically half zoned business towards Main Road and half zoned residential from the north up. Are you, do you have any designs on, any plans for the residentially zoned half of the property? MR. HUGHES: No Ma'am, I have no plans at this time for that piece of property and I spoke to Reverend Dozer about that piece of property. I would work with him you know, if he needed parking or whatever. I mean that's, I have no plans for that piece of property. MEMBER COLLINS: And it hasn't been used under the Bergen regime? It's just, it's just a - MR. HUGHES: The only plans I have for that property Ma'am is to clean it up. There's a lot of garbage and stuff in the back. I'd like to clean that up. MEMBER COLLINS: OK: Just a question about, about your business. I mean, you know, I travel Main Road so I've seen your business over the years. You I know run a very brisk brokerage business in used boats. Do you do any new boats? MR. HUGHES: Yes we do. Small craft fishing boats. MEMBER COLLINS: OK and you a, because I've never seen any new boats. MR. HUGHES show you. Oh, I have new boats in the lot right now I can MEMBER COLLINS: You do, OK, I didn't really go poking around. MR. HUGHES: Well over the winter because we shrink wrap everything. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, OK. I'll tell you why I'm asking. I'm sure you've read the statute but, it does state, Special Exception for the sale of used boats or automobiles is to be conducted only as an accessory to the sale of new boats. MR. HUGHES: Yes. MEMBER COLLINS: And I therefore think that's an important aspect of your business. OK, thank you. Page 52 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizo? MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I have no questions at this time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, We'll see what develops throughout the hearing. We may have you back up Mr. Hughes, we thank you. MR. HUGHES: OK, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to speak in favor? Anybody, in favor? Could I just get Mr. Perricone first? Thank you very much. Mr. Perricone, how are you tonight? MR. PERRICONE: My name is Steve Perricone. I'm a Board Member of the Southold Business Alliance and Southold Business Alliance of course is in favor of Mr. Hughes' application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Speak just a little louder I apologize. You know what, pull it over to the side of the podium. That's where it should be anyway. Thank you. MR. PERRICONE: OK, can you hear me? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. PERRICONE: The Southold Business Lodge of course is in favor of this application for Mr. Hughes. Both the Board Members and the Officers including the Members of the Alliance. I'm sure Mr. Hughes has good plans for this property. I'm sure he's going to conduct his business in a business manner. I'm sure he's not going to take away from the beauty of the town especially in that area and a that's all I have to say for him. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. PERRICONE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Reverend I apologize. We always go from right to left. In your case it's left to right. How are you tonight Sir? REV. DOZER: Fine. I'm Reverend Dozer of the Unity Baptist Church in Mattituck and I'm here with a few of our Members and some homeowners to the west of the property. As much as being in favor of the property there's just a few things that we would like to ask. First of all on the short form of the environmental form, question #9, it has that the vicinity is commercial and that's not really true so I'm not really sure how, how that's answered because the vicinity really is residential. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, it is but, the houses across from A & P, or the parking lot that's on the side, are Business Zoned. ,page 53 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals REV. DOZER: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, so, you know, I, I think that it's within that flavor. I don't mean to get, I mean we, we could perfectly have Mr. Hughes depict everyone of those houses that were Business Zoned as went down, but, if you remember the gentleman that's across from Bridgehampton National Bank, he's had that house for sale for many years. It's the one that a little bit low and he's always indicated that that was Zoned Business. He had the sign out there that it was Business Zoned and I don't think it goes as far as your church because I think that you're just out of the Business Zone area and including the lot that I believe that Mrs. what you call wants to give you a - REV. DOZER: You mean Mrs. Bergen? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. REV. DOZER: Well, yeah, so when we look at the setback, you have the setback for the front, we're a little concern about the setbacks for the side, with the size of a boat that would be to the houses that are to the left - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see. REV. DOZER: And, and wondering what is the setback from the side? What kind of screening would be available for the side of that? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, to my knowledge there is no setback because they're not permanent structures. But, I'm not the Building Inspector, but you certainly, you know, we certainly could place you know, some sought of screening, I have to tell you that the most adequate screening that I have seen is sliding the fence. That is the most adequate screening that I've seen. REV. DOZER: Well we've spoken to Mr. Hughes and we feel pretty confident in doing that, but, when you have, you do have residential on that side and to put large boats up for you know something like that would really begin to block the air and everything else, you know. We are, we're very appreciative of the, the, of trying to clean up the area because with boats and stuff just all around the area does look a little compacted, so we really appreciate that. But, we were concerned and I, and first we, for the record was an understanding the duel zoning, but I've come down about that and understood the residential and that. But, it was the setbacks and the screening that was going to live in with those oil tanks that we've all been so concerned about our water and what has been going on around there and so to have those oil tanks removed. There is a thousand gallon tank that's there and him and I have talked abOut There's a brand new tank that has never been used and so we're confident that we'll work something out with that, OK. Page 54 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anything you'd like to say Reverend? I don't mean to take words away from you in your next trend of thought, but is there anything you specifically want from this Board that Mr. Hughes might have to do in reference to screening? REV. DOZER: Well Angie BoUnsiquot. I, I just want you know what I've said as far as the screening is concerned, we're really concerned about the houses to the west of that and making sure that with the storage of the boats and how it would go back. It wouldn!t really be large boats that were there and that somehow it would be screened. You have gas tanks, you have kids that's running back and forth. Somehow just to sought of protect our property so that none of the kids and the stuff in that area would run over on that property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. MEMBER TORTORA: Screening, just, could you a, here is the survey map. Could you show me on the map, you know' maybe if you could just pencil in or the area that you're concerned about screening because right now there's a chain link fence that goes right to the residential property here. This is the property that he can, that he would be using. He's not going to be using this property. REV. DOZER: The residential property, right, right. MEMBER TORTORA: screening. So, show me where you're concerned about REV. DOZER: This side here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, that's absolutely the other side. MEMBER COLLINS: It's the west side. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's the side closest to you I think. REV. DOZER: the west side. Right. Yeah, we're concerned about this side. It's CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, it's the east side. REV. DOZER: I mean the east side. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: right? The one that's opposite to the church, REV. DOZER: East, west direction. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The one that backs up to the church? REV. DOZER: No, no, the one that backs up to the west side. .Page 55 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: apologize. Oh, it backs up to the west side? Oh, I REV. DOZER; The west side, the west side. REV. DOZER: Oh, I apologize. Oh, yeah, because the trees pretty much block it. REV. DOZER: Yeah, right there, right there. MEMBER TORTORA: OK. (Applicant and Members still looking at the map and are discussing amongst themselves. ) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Where are we from here? spoken? Is there someone you want to call up, Reverend, OK? Everybody someone else REV. DOZER: Yes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: record, Sir. Thank you. Yes, just state your name for the MR. BOURSIQUOT: My name is Angie Boursiquot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you spell the last name for us, Sir? MRS. BOURSIQUOT: I'm going to spell it. B O U R S I Q U O T, Boursiquot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR. BOURSIQUOT: I have a few questions. If the permit is granted, one of my concern is the safety at a future date, if there will be any gas tank or oil tank? What it will do for the safety of that? If you're going to put sprinkler, or fire, or any fire extinguisher? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, do you want to answer that? Why don't you a, why don't you stand up here and because you don't have the luxury of having the mike so you're closer to this. MR. HUGHES: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. HUGHES: Well we're not going to store any kind of gasoline or anything like that. We take our boats down to Hess and gas them. So, we're not, I don't want to, I don't do anything like that there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, let's clear this. So there's no outside storage of gasoline oil, fuel oil, or diesel fuel or anything of that nature? Page 56 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. HUGHES, No, absolutely not, no, and as far as a, I mean that would probably, I don't know how you, I mean there's an inground sprinkler system on the property already installed on the property. But, there would be no inflammable liquids or anything there. MR. BOURSIQUOT: them? But some of those gas tanks, they have gas in MR. HUGHES: Yeah, sure. MR. BOURSIQUOT: So there's a concern there. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It's exactly like storing ears on a piece of property. It's the same situation, OK. I'm not taking anything away from this. I have'to tell you that a, having owned a boat for many years, alright, and having bathe on Peconic Bay for, when I say bathe I mean boated on Peconic Bay, pardon me, for over 35 years, that the venting in these tanks are relatively good. You know I've never had a problem knock on wood. I'm not a superstitious person but, I have to tell you that I'm a, you know, so I'm just saying that for the record. MR. BOURSIQUOT: OK, number 2, Rev. Dozer talked about it, is about fencing all the way down for people including the back side of the property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Now the question is, do you want these fence, this fence slatted? Let me just ask a question of Mr. Hughes. Is the fence on the property line? MR. HUGHES: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: their side? Is the fence on the property line on MEMBER TORTORA: On the west side? MR. HUGHES: Yeah, there's a fence. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, but is it right on the property line, or is it just, you know like?? MRS. BOURSIQUOT: It's only. We had a problem with Mr. Bergen and these big oil tanks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MRS. BOURSIQUOT: And we finally came to an agreement because we rented to families who had children. He fenced only like part of the way. People can still get into the property on the back side and our fear is that these boats will get vandalized and then as a, you know, as a landlord that we're going to be responsible for these boats. So, we need to know that these boats are going to be secured some, someway from intruders or vandals. page 57 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: Red, how much of it is not fenced on here? MR. HUGHES: Well I plan on fencing the whole property in. MEMBER TORTORA: From, where? MR. HUGHES: Where the business part is. MEMBER TORTORA: To right here? MR. HUGHES: It's fenced right now to right here. MEMBER TORTORA: And that's stockaded? MR. HUGHES: Yeah and we took the fence down back here because we cleaned this area up. So I'm going to put that back up and you know, and it's fenced both sides this way. But, I'm going to put that fence back up. I just took it down to clean the place up. MEMBER TORTORA: Will this be stockade here? MR. HUGHES: I really dOn't want to use stockade. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, we're going to use chain link. MEMBER TORTORA: Chain link? MR. HUGHES: Yeah, because if you back into it and the boat hits it, it cracks. So I was going to use chain link. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: issue? Does that answer your question on that MR. BOURSIQUOT: Well so long as there's Something for the safety of the people and for his boat, like that nobody is respo~sible from my side~ or, if anything happens in the future. "' MR. HUGHES: Well you see my customers are required to have their own insurance policy on their boats. So, that, that's a requirement. They have to si~n a storage contract to that effect and when those boats come in they have to have their own insurance on their, on their particular boats so. You're not responsible and we're not responsible for them to have insurance. That's mandatory. You have to have.your own insurance. You see the boats that are there are very nice boats and a - MRS. BOURSIQUOT: They're very nice boats but a, we would like to request if possible, if you could move the larger boats toward the other side because it stops the air flow flow from going into the houses in the summer. MR. BOURSIQUOT: In the summer, we just would like them put on the right hand side instead of the left hand side. Page 58 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. HUGHES: OK, but let me just a. Can I show you one thing? (All parties are looking at plans and discussing what the Boursiquots would like done.) You know what's going to happen? These boats are going to be leaving anyway and going into the water. So slowly but surely they're all going to be out of there and what IHI do from now, we'll put little trailer boats here and I'll put the bigger boats here, but, this is my displayer which is not near your houses or anything. MR. BOURSIQUOT: Hm, bm. MR. HUGHES: You know this little, that piece I blacked top, I blacked topped it so I can display my nice boats up front. MRS. BOURSIQUOT: The part that you black topped I think there were car spaces? MR. BOURSIQUOT: We haven't come to that? MRS. BOURSIQUOT: We're here now. MR. HUGHES: Well go ahead. MRS. BOURSIQUOT: We need then because these cars are coming on to our property. MR. HUGHES: Well what's going to happen - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, wait, wait, we've got too many speaking at one time here. MR. HUGHES: I was speaking to my uncle. We were thinking about putting like a horse fence behind it so it looks nice and you know you, you're looking at something - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You mean like a split rail? MR. HUGHES: Yeah, something, you know. MR. BOURSIQUOT: You know where the car park right now some of these people want to leave, - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. BOURSIQUOT: He described. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: On your property? MR. HUGHES: Yeah, they do, you're right. MR. BOURSIQUOT: And there has to be a limitation abstained like that. Even if somebody went to cross backwards but not for a car to cross the other way. ,Page 59 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER TORTORA: You have no objection if we put this in as conditions as safeguards for You, safeguards for the community? MR. HUGH.ES: Yeah, I just want to understand what a - MEMBER TORTORA: Yes, that's why we talk about them you know. MR. HUGHES: Mr. Goehringer just so you know, we just blacked topped that area, so people inadvertently pull on there and some people have no respect for other people's property and they'll drive right over Mr. Boursiquot's property. I just, it was just done and we just haven't finished it off. So that's why that's happening right now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MR. HUGHES: And those aren't our customers. coming into the insurance company. Those, they're CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: in to stop that? So you're going to put a split rail fence MR. HUGHES: Well, yeah, it's going to stop once we put the boats there. But, I, I was just thinking, I was speaking to my uncle today about it. Maybe we'll just put a nice little fence there so it dresses the area. I just didn't want to go on Mr. Boursiquot's property with a fence, so that's why we kind a. MRS. BOURSIQUOT: That's why laws are for safety. MR. HUGHES: Yeah and I just want it to look nice too. MEMBER TORTORA: Let him say exactly what he wants to do Jerry. If we can get exactly the distance you want to get and we can put it in as a condition. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, let us know what the distance is. MR. HUGHES: OK. MEMBER TORTORA: And the same with a, across the back of the chain link fence so that we can just incorporate those conditions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: office. Just fill it in and drop it off to the MR. HUGHES: OK, I understand. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes Sir, Mr. Homing? There's .nothing you have to do tonight. MEMBER HORNING: This proposed split rail fence to enhance the property line,, are you suggesting that it would have to be on these people's property? Page 60 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. HUGHES: Oh, no, no. I just, the reason why I didn't just go ahead and do it because I just didn't want to put a fence up that was on Mr. Boursiquot's property. I didn't you know~ We just talked about it a couple of days ago and a - MEMBER HORNING: I mean does the black topping go right to the boundary line? That's what I'm asking. MR. HUGHES: I, I'm not sure. I know about - MRS. BOURSIQUOT: Yes, it does. MR. HUGHES: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well you can still put split rail in. just dig out that to put the post in and that's it. You MR. HUGHES: It's that nice horse fence. It looks nice. whateVer you want to call it. Split rail, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Any other questions of him? MR. BOURSIQUOT: Yes, one more question which I don't know exactly how to address it. It's nice that you have a nice business over there. Your upgrade throughout the neighborhood is somewhat puzzling. But since I'm a, my property is residential and I think that somewhat would devalue my property also, if I want to sell it at a future date. We were just wondering, would it be interesting in buying a house next to the boat yard as far as noise maybe concerning? People cranking the boat early in the morning. All of those things will be taken into consideration if someone wants to buy it. So this I do not know how to address that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well any work on the boats will be shielded from the property. In other words kept over to the opposite side of the property. I mean that's the way it would be done. So a, you know, to what extent do we work on these boats, Mr. Hughes? MR. HUGHES: 4:30. We start at 9:00 in the morning and we're done at CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The normal course of operation is to start the boats sometime during the day and - MR. HUGHES: Yeah, we run it up on land very quickly and then go to the water with it and put it in the water. Just to make sure it runs before we bring it to the water. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well is there a possibility that some of this work can be done on the easterly side of the property - ,Page 61 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. HUGHES: Yeah, sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To accommodate these people? MR. HUGHES: On the other side, sure. I'll work with Mr. & Mrs. Boursiquot any way that I can. I want to be a good neighbor. I want to do the right thing. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So, in the culmination of this hearing you're going to give us the copy showing what fence you're going to add on to and possibly some split rail that you may stick. MR. HUGHES: Yeah, I can do that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK and. you'll bring that into us before we make, because we need that before next week. MR. HUGHES: I'll do that right away. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anything else? Jim? MEMBER DINIZlO: Can I just say something about the fence? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: The part between the residential and the business, you're going to have that fence, it will be able to open at some point between the residential and the business? MR. HUGHES: No, it's just a fixed split rail fence.. MEMBER DINIZIO: between those two? You're not going to have some kind of a gate MR. HUGHES: No, because we really won't need it. dress up the back so that when they you know. It's just to MEMBER DINIZIO: I was just 'concerned about access. other access to that? Is there any MR. HUGHES: Well we got the two driveways. You want me to show you where that's going to go? Mr. Boursiquot, can I borrow your survey there? Because it shows things a little better. (Looked at survey) I know, we're going to close that off. MRS. BOURSIQUOT: Yeah, that's what we want closed off. MR. HUGHES: It was closed. the fence down. We're going to reclose it. We took MRS. BOURSIQUOT: The doesn't close. The kids - MR. HUGHES: OK. This is .the driveway and this is a driveway and yeu know, you can go right around. This is where there's Page 62 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals going to be a boat displayed in the front. We're just going to put a dressed, you know a post rail kind of thing, just to kind of make. it look nice in the back. MEMBER DINIZIO: That I understand. I'm, I'm concerned about this. Residential business, you're going to take a piece of the fence and go this way? MR. HUGHES: fence. Yeah, we're just going to put back the existing MEMBER DINIZIO: Is there going to be any gates there? allow you to get into it? Does it MR. HUGHES: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ne, it's all woods. MEMBER DINIZIO: problem? If anybody wants to get into it, there's no MR. HUGHES: Not right now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: too. There's a significant drop in elevation MEMBER DINIZIO: when you do that? So there's no access to this piece of property MR. HUGHES: That's a good point. Maybe I will put a gate there. I don't know. I was just going to put that fence back up that was there and then - MRS. BOURSIQUOT: There's a part of the fence that was there that kids were getting into the property, because I have another building - MR. HUGHES: It's right here. MRS. BOURSIQUOT: I have a shop that when I bought the property it was used as a machine shop. It hasn't been used in 22 years because the Board would not permit to open as a machine shop. Behind that that is open instead and that could be a problem because if somebody goes in the back could be coming into your property back there. MR. HUGHES: Because Mrs. Boursiquot, what I, I, don't know if this is representing where that fence was. Actually I think right here is probably where that fence was. MRS. BOURSIQUOT: Right, it's before the trailer. MR. HUGHES: We're coming back further over this way. .P. age 63 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: Well this is your, this is the zone - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: zone. You're going to encompass the entire MR. HUGHES: the cutoff. Yeah, that's the zone. We're going to come back to MEMBER DINIZIO: It's just my concern is access to this piece of property. Is 'there any access to that from your piece of properties to do maintenance and for emergency vehicles? MR. HUGHES: We could put a, I just haven't given it a thought. We probably could - MEMBER. DINIZIO: In other words, this would be landlock when you're done with that because there's no access here? MR. HUGHES: Yes, there is access actually right here. MEMBER DINiZIO: Do you have right-of-way? MR. HUGHES: No, actually it's Mrs. Bergen's property. I guess she's giving it to the Reverend. But, that's an access way into that back that property. MRS. BOURSIQUOT: But that is rarely used. MR. HUGHES: Yeah, that's true. MRS. BOURSIQUOT: The only access would be if there were any problem, they would have to come through my area right here if there were any emergency. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well I have to tell you in case of fire, they certainly would come and utilize your property. We'd have to run hoses right over the front. MEMBER DINIZIO: Oh, yeah, well, I was just concerned about putting the fence over the front gate there? MR. HUGHES: Yeah I probably could do that, that's no problem. MEMBER DINIZIO: A double gate or something? MR. HUGHES: Yeah, that's no problem. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anything else? MRS. BOURSIQUOT: for this property. I guess we are asking for a Special Exemption In the future can I also ask for a Special Page 64 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals Exemption to have that shop put back into use since I was not allow for years now? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: If it's on Business Zone property, OK. Is the shop on Business Zone property? MR. BOURSIQUOT: It was a business before that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, that, this is not - MRS. BOURSIQUOT: That's Southold CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is not a copout phrase, OK, by using this phrase, OK, just so you're aware of this, alright, which is of course a slime turn, alright. But, it's up to the Building Inspector to make that determination. I can't answer that question at this time, I apologize. MR. & MRS. BOURSIQUOT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're welcome. Thank you for your concern. OK, is there anybody else would like to speak for or against concerns, OK? So, Mr. Hughes you're going to give us that information and a so that we have everything and we can make it conclusive in the decision? MR. HUGHES: Sure. MEMBER DINIZIO: Jerry? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I ask what information are we going to receive from Mr. Hughes? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, he's going to show us what fenced area, he's going to measure from the gate all the way back as far as the fence is going to go and he's going to earmark that or indicate that on this survey that he has afforded us. Is that correct? MR. HUGHES: That's current there? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, OK, he's going to tell us what area on the west side of the property that these nice people have just spoke that he intends to put a split rail fence, OK, and to what distance that's going to protrude out, OK. Remember that fence cannot exceed 4 feet, it's in the front yard area. MEMBER TORTORA: That's because it's Special Exemption CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not to exceed 4 feet in height. MR. HUGHES: Oh, OK, sure. .page 65 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's a two rail split rail fence- MR. HUGHES: That's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not to exceed 4 feet 6 inches in height. MR. HUGHES: OK, I didn't know that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, that to my knowledge is the extent of that, OK. He's also indicated which we will embody in the findings of fact, OK, for the person that's going to draft this that the major business activity will take place on the east side of the property and he has capitulated and said that he will eventually move the larger boats to the east side of the property. That should also be a part of the, isn't that correct? MR. HUGHES: Yeah, but they're going to be leaving anyway. They go into the water. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I'm just saying when you, when you repossess them next fall. MR. HUGHES: Yes. MEMBER TORTORA: The height, the height on that fence is, is a 4 feet in the front yard. Run down the Building Department and ask them to determine where your side yard begins. I wouldn't even take a guess at it because it could be 6 feet. You know when you going back in the side yard. MR. HUGHES: There's a 6 feet fence there now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And you'll giVe us that within a week. MR. HUGHES: I'll get it tomorrow. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, great, alright, is that. OK, Jim? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes, I just want to be sure, you know, we know what's required of him, we don't need that at another meeting. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, OK, we thank everybody for their courtesy and hearing no further comment I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 66 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 Board of Appeals 8:45 P.M. - Appl. No. 4683 - VIRGINIA CAMPBELL A Variance is requested under the Southold Town Zoning Code, Article III-A, Section 100-30A.3 and Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4 based upon two February 26, 1999 NotiCes of Disapproval which state that the addition is proposed to be located at less than 75 feet from the bulkhead and will exceed the overall 20% lot coverage limitation. Location of Property; 215 Harbor Lights Drive, Southold; Parcel 1000-71-2-6. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the survey indicating the approximate placement of this rather stately 2 story framed dwelling and the proposed location of the pool at 50 feet for the pool, 45 feet for the brick patio to the bulkhead 18.5 feet to property. I guess we're going to call that to the west and I have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. How are you tonight? Can you state your name for the record? MR. SALVI: Good evening. For the record, Joseph Salvi, 18 Windmill Lane, Southampton, N.Y., and I represent the Contract Vendee for this property, Mr. Patrick Kelly, and that he's also the tenant today. The owners of the property, Dr. Campbell I think is back here too, I'm sure wants to say a little bit as we go along. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, could you just speak a little louder. MR. SALVI: Yeah sure. PT-SECY. FARRELL: And we need the green cards. MR. SALVI: I do have the Affidavit of Posting and the mailing, the proof of mailing so I'll submit that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, thank you. MR. SALVI: As I was just saying, the applicant is in contract to purchase this property from Dr. & Mrs. Campbell. That contract is contingent upon our ability to build a pool and that's why we're here today to get a variance to construct a 20 x 40 pool with a very modest brick patio, set in sand, situate around the pool. The proposed pool is proposed to be situate 18.5 feet from the called the west property line and the brick patio is situate 13.5 feet. Both are conforming with that side yard setback in this R-40 Zone. Some of the property which the problem we have is the practical diffieulty that we have CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you just pull that mike down a little Mr. Salvi. We're having trouble. MR. SALVI: The property is situated in an R-40 Zone which as you know requires a 40,000 sq. ft. lot. This lot is 20,000 sq. ft. The .page 67 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals total allowable lot coverage is 20%. So, that's a nonconforming lot in an 1{-40 Zone. You could have a lot coverage of 8,000 sq. ft. But, when you have a 20,000 sq. ft. lot, with 20% lot coverage, you're limited to a total lot coverage of only 4,000 sq. ft. The total lot coverage with the existing dwelling and the pool comprise is a 5815 sq. ft., which is 1818 sq. ft. over the maximum allowable on this particular lot. Again as I said, this has been a 40,000 sq. ft. lot. 8,000 sq. ft. would be permitted for a lot coverage and it would be in fact considerably less than the maximum required if this were a conforming lot. But, it's not, it's a preexisting lot conformed lot. CHAIRMAN GoEHRINGER: Could you just check that mike and see if it's on? Just check it. I apologize. MR. SALVI: I'm going to start yelling, OK. Additionally, the applicant also requires relief from Section 138.3 of your Code; which requires that a setback be not less than 75 feet from a bulkhead. As you can see the pool is proposed to be 50 feet from the bulkhead, and the brick patio 45 feet. We're sought of limited with the location where we can put the pool for two reasons. One of which is as you can see on your survey, the central area of the property, there is the septic tank and the five system leeching pool for the sanitary system and there is a required setback between the pool and those two systems which we meet currentIy here. We cannot go any further or any closer to the house without infringing upon those two systems. If we were to move the proposed pool, to the west or the east, it would have no effect on the variance relief that we would be requesting. So, there's no way to really minimize or having any other alternative but to meet here and request this variance. We have applied to the Trustees for the wetlands permit and actually I had a hearing on that laSt night. We had preliminary met with the Trustees on the site before this proposal was planned and before both applications were submitted and we've gotten their feedback and they seem to be comfortable with this, this location and this proposal. At the hearing last night the Trustees did approve the permit which had this very same plan on it so they seem to be in support of issuing a permit. That this distance from the bulkhead in this location. Of course not that you're bound by that determination but, I hope you consider that as part of your understanding that this setbacks were not that major of a deal. We cannot have the pool without the relief that we requested. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The thing that I find a little strange is why the pool is skewed more towards the west property? We'll refer to that as west and why it's not centrally located or skewed more towards the vacant lot that's on the opposite side? MR. SALVI: Alright to answer your question, if you look at those sanitary leeching pools, which extend further than the septic tank, the more that the property, that the pool gets pushed to the east, the closer the pool is going to be to those rings. So, that location maximizes the difference of the pool from the rings since the rings jet out further - Page 68 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is this a liner pool or a gunite? MR. SALVI: A gunite pool Sir. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: really. It shouldn't have any effect upon MR. SALVI: Yeah but they require setbacks and that's what's the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What, what is the required setback? MR. SALVI: I believe it's 10 feet from the pool to the rings and I believe that the Environmentalist Interscience located on this site for that very purpose. That's why the pool is a little skewed towards that area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I mean I can see the 5 pool system because it's a waterfront lot. But, I really don't see, I mean, I mean you're into it, you're into that area anyway. MR. SALVI: Hm, bm. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't see, I don't see the reason why it's skewed to that. I mean I understand your reasoning for it. But, I still think that a gunite pool is basically a, and I, I, this is just my opinion, OK, it's a bomb shelter to build in an opposite direction OK. Instead of on top, it's reverse. I mean, you can literally use one for a bomb shelter if you put a crypt underneath it inconceivably because they have used them, OK. And a, I mean that it's not a liner pool, OK, it's, it's a - MR. SALV~: It's none, none the less Mr. Chairman, the requirement still exists and if you see where, where the pool jets out, the south side of the pool, that little a offshoot of it, the problem that the further you take the pool and move it to the west, the less the setback is between the sanitary ring, the leeching ring I should say, and the that can come up - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, I understand what you're saying. MR. SALVI: And regardless of what type of a pool it is, that setback still has to be preserved and this - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do we have, we have town water in this area, right? We have Suffolk County Water there? MEMBER COLLINS: No. MR. SALVI.' I hear a lot of no's. I don't know the answer. MEMBER HORNING~ No. .Page 69 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, it's well water. There's well water in this house Dr.? There's well water in this house? You have a well? DR. CAMPBELL: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. That was Dr. Campbell. OK, I'm sorry, I didn't mean for you to lose your trend of thought. MR. SALVI: No, no, of course not. Both the pool and the patio are going to be built. Again, it's a brick and stone patio. It's going to be built in grades. There shouldn't be any visual impact to the neighboring properties. Additionally, Mr. Kelly and I talked about it. We discussed and he has agreed to do a road privet along the, that westerly property line to effectively screen any a, there's not, I don't believe there's going to be any visual impact but, put a screening there which is a natural vegetation two privet hedge just to minimize any effect to that neighbor as you say it's a little bit closer on that side than on the other side and I think I've explained the reasons for that. I'm sure you're all familiar with this area. It is a nice area. There are some other pools in this area and it's a, I think that the pool is placed and as I said otherwise in a conforming location but for the lot coverage and the bulkhead so the side yard setback does in fact meet all the requirements as your code for setbacks for side yards. The last points. There are no other accessory structures that are on this lot. Currently it's just a house. We're just asking for wide accessory structure which would be a pool and obviously any other, anything else that the applicant would ever want to build on this property would have to come to this Board to be over the lot coverage. So there are no other plans for expansion other than this po01. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: not a smaller pool? The other question is, why 20 x 40 and MR. SALVI: need. The applicant has children and this is the size they CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This is not a lap pool? This is a full? MR. SALVI: It's a, it's a regular pool, yes, it's designed for the children and the family to enjoy. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. questions ? We'll start with Mr. Dinizio, MEMBER DINIZIO: No, I don't. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: I'm trying to decide whether to ask a question or make a comment. I have both on my mind. I mean the comment simply is, it is a 20,000 sq. ft. lot, that's what you have and it's really, not very helpful to say, if it were 40,000 we wouldn't have a Page 70 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 Board of Appeals problem. I think you do have a problem. Could you tell us a little more about the what is called I guess, brick patio on the drawing, on the survey -. MR. SALVI: Sure. MEMBER COLLINS: Around the pool. mind? This makes a difference -. Exactly what do they have in MR. SALVI: I understand. MEMBER COLLINS: When it comes to calculating lot coverage. It can make quite a difference, so I'd like to hear what you have in mind. MR. SALVI: If you're familiar with brick pavers, individual brick pavers set flat in sand, that is all. MEMBER COLLINS: Then Mr. Chairman, don't you think perhaps the lot coverage is considerably less than the 29% the Building Inspector has calculated there? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, as, as you know my opinion. I'll give you the floor in one second, as you know my opinion, there is no physical way you can lay something flat - MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, I know. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: little bit - On a piece of property that falls away a MEMBER COLLINS: OK. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, so conceivably if we have higher ground in the area of the part that's closest to the house, we certainly have that issue of zero lot coverage. But, when it starts to fall away, you run into the lot coverage issue. MEMBER COLLINS: Yes, you mean zero deviations of grade. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes, right. MEMBER COLLINS: Ok, I just was asking about the - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm sorry Jim. MEMBER COLLINS: on this. Well no, we know, we know Mr. Dinizio's views MEMBER DINIZIO: Thank you very much, I appreciate that. MEMBER COLLINS: I mean my reaction is, this is a very big pool with a big surround on a small lot and I find it not consistent with the neighborhood. End of comment. .Page 71 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I have to agree. You're proposing 29% lot coverage and I think that this Board has agonized over 25 but 29, I don't remember that happening in recent years. The existing house is, 3750 sq. ft. It's a big house as you said, you're on a half acre lot and you want to increase the lot coverage from almost 19% to 29%. That's a substantial variance. The distance to the bulkhead, that is a substantial variance. If it were a one acre lot you wouldn't be here. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No, he would still be here for the lot coverage. I mean for the distance lot. MEMBER TORTORA: For the distance. So I, I - MR. SALVI: Let me propose this. MEMBER TORTORA: Yes. MR. SALVI: Let me propose tkis. That if the applicant were willing to avoid the brick patio. What, what if we stuck with the, simply the pool which would be a footprint of 800 sq. ft., 20 x 40, which would make the lot coverage 800 sq. ft. plus the 3748 which would be 4528 sq. ft., which would be only 528 sq. ft. more than the total lot, lot coverage permitable. So we're talking about I or 2%. MEMBER TORTORA: In other words you're going to - MEMBER COLLINS: 2-1/2 to 3 actually. MEMBER TORTORA: the pool without from the grass? MR. SALVI: I would put a nice grass lawn there. MEMBER HORNING: PeoPle don't generally do that? clippings would get into the pool. The grass MR. SALVI: Well, I'm asking you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: My, my suggestion is that you use, I'm sorry I didn't mean to knock what's coming. Somehow I always get my point across and I apologize, OK. My suggestion is, you get a landscape architect. You let him lay the pool out on this piece of property, OK, and let him tell you what the elevation factor is going to be by either filling around it or not filling around it and using this as an existing grade, OK. Because, it's his license that's on the line, alright, in reference to what we have in reference to lot coverage. That's my opinion, alright? You understand what I mean. MR. SALVI: Yeah. Page 72 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, and he will determine what so you may be correct in one estimation and that is and I may be correct, that the portion closest to the house may not involve lot coverage, OK, because ii may be at zero grade. And, I can see a person living with a brick patio around at least one or two sides of the pool, you know, I can't see a person in reality and this has nothing to do with your applicant. This is a generic statement, OK, living with no patio around the pool. MR. SALVI: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. It's just not going to happen. I mean because it clogs the filter, it' not the normal way. The rain comes down and it throws everything into the pool and so on and so forth. That's the purpose of this. So, I mean, that's my suggestion. MEMBER TORTORA: The other thing that a, I noticed on the survey that the location of the cesspools has not been guaranteed and has to be before construction. Why don't you do that? You know talk so adamantly about where the septic system is. MR. SALVI: They were located by the survey. MEMBER TORTORA: Then why do they say they're not guaranty, verify all those locations before construction? MR. SALVI: We'll get the survey MEMBER DINIZIO: Well I, you know, that's a pretty standard thing on the survey that you know, if they start digging and they find whatever they could move it a foot, or move it whatever. But, if I can comment on I believe the applicant made an offer to eliminate lot coverage of approximately about 7% and you know, I think it's disingenuous of this Board not to consider that and to enforce its own opinion on this applicant as to whether or not he wants to clean grass clippings out of his liner because I .can take you down not two miles from here to a pool that is exactly what he's describing and I know it's been there for at least 15 years and probably has the same pump and filter. I just would not want to force you know, the applicant wants to make an application and he's willing to work within the confines of our laws, you know, I think we should let him have his day in court. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm just saying in my opinion, it's my opinion Jim and I'm entitled to my opinion too, OK. I'm just telling you it's not practical, OK. I've had a pool for 22 years and I can tell you if I don't have something around it, everything goes into the pool, alright. MEMBER DINIZIO: your opinion. I agree with you, but that, you know, that's CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And you have a swimming pool too. page 73 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: Yes I do and with all honesty, stuff gets in it anyway. So, I don't think that we should be voicing our opinion of what the applicant wants, OK. If they want to pull grass out of their pool for the rest of their lives, that's not our opinion. We're not here to say he has to have a certain amount of grass clippings not within his pool. We're here to say, if it's close enough to a piece of property line, the setbacks are proper, and if the lot coverage is within you know spec and if he wants a 22%, that's what he's asking for, hey listen, I don't care how he gets it. Maybe he get a 2%, maybe he doesn't. Maybe he builds a 36 by you know a 16 pool afterwards. He get himself a little bit of an edge there but, he made an offer, I mean I think that you know, voicing our opinion certainly before we deliberate is not, is just not fair. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's my opinion. never stopped you from voicing your opinion. I'm entitled to. I MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, thank you. MR. SALVI: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MR. SALVI: Can I request that we can keep the meeting open and perhaps we can come in with another plan at the next hearing date. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well, that's what I'm basically Suggesting. MR. SALVI: You know what I'd be willing to do here? My client and I will talk about possibility making the pool a little bit smaller than maybe just doing a minimal walker slate around the pool to maybe you know, avoid the clipping problem but still have a small area so that we can hopefully reduce our request considerably by strengthening the pool and the patio both I think would probably cut our request somewhat down to 23% propose lot coverage from the 29 which I think you probably would agree would be significant. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Fine, it's fine with me. MEMBER TORTORA: Sounds good. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is it OK? Is it OK with you Jim? MEMBER COLLINS: Absolutely, I think that's - MEMBER DINIZIO: Whatever the applicant wants. It's his dime. I don't care what he does. But, I just don't want us to tell him not to do something, that's all. MEMBER COLLINS: what to do. Tell him what to do, we don't want to tell him MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Chairman? Page 74 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 = Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: George? MEMBER HORNING: The applicant has stated requirement distance from the leeching pools. Sir, can you submit the document to us? MR. SALVI: Yeah, I'll get that information for you from the Environmentalist and I'll try to provide for you also the setbacks from the pools to the leeching fields and I w-ill submit that information at the next hearing. MEMBER HORNING: With a rational as to why you couldn't more centrally locate that in the property here with equal setbacks from the side yards. MR. SALVI: t'11 do that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: When, Mr. Kelly excuse me one second. When you say the Environmentalist, you're referring to the Suffolk County Health Department Services, is that correct? MR. SALVI: No, I'm actually referring to Inters¢ience with the Environmental specialist who handled the application before the Trustees last night. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I see. MR. SALVI: And we can kind of lean on the environmental issues. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, but that's going to earmark exactly what Suffolk County Health Services is saying, that a specific structure can be within a distance of a septic tank or such. MR. SALVI: Correct, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sorry. MR. SALVI: Can I ask you for a continuous? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure, we're going to continue the hearing anyway. MR. SALVI: Oh, great. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And we'll just hold it up or we'll recess it and you can come back and we'll close it. MR. SALVI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else would like to speak in favor of this application? Anybody like to speak against the application? OK, we'll take approximately a 5 or 10 minute recess on this hearing, go on to the next one and we'll close it. I need a motion to recess this hearing for 10 minutes. ,page 75 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: So moved. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried: See Minutes for Resolution. Page 76 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals 9:14 - Appl. No. 4675- ANTHONY HUGHES & SUSAN HULME A Variance is requested based upon the January 21~ 1999 Notice of Disapproval which states that under Article XXIV, Section 100-244B, the required side yard for lots with .58 acre is to be 15 ft. minimum and a total combined side yard of 35 feet. Location of Property: 1330 Salt Marsh Lane, Peconic, N.Y.; County Parcel 1000-68-03-03. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of a survey indicating the approximate location of the house as it sits presently in respect to its position from the back or the top of the bluff and we have all been there and visually seen the erosion factor of this bluff. (changed tape) Mr. Tohill we are ready Sir. Please excuse me. MR. TOHILL: Good evening Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Anthony Tohill. I'm here representing the applicants. I have handed up the Affidavit of Posting. Attached to that is the green cards. We're missing the green card for the neighbor to the immediate west, although we mailed to them. I also handed up a case called, Baker-v-Brownlie that will fit into the presentation in a bit. It's a Second Department~ 1998 case. It's very recent. It came out of Dehring Harbor and Shelter Island and it involved a certain set of facts where I want to bring that particular case to the court's attention. It's one of those few cases that the Second Department, Appellate Division, has used so far since 1993, to talk about the Five Statutory Standards that were codified in 1993. There are very few cases where, they deal with the differences between the law before 1993 and the Post ]993 Law. So, it's important in that respect but it's also important in certain practical with respect to this application. I also handed up two collections of photographs to show you what the house looks like from the waterside or seaward edge of the house so that you can see how little of the bluff is there today. I showed you some photographs from out on the road to just get you the sweep of things. I also handed up a single and separate search which shows that the property in fact is single and separate. The exact nature of the application is that the property owners wish to move the house from its present position right top of the bluff back plus or minus 40 feet. So in doing that they're relocating the existing footprint to a .40 feet landward in the process preserving the existing side yards on the property. The side yards are nonconforming. 7.6 feet on the west side, 12 feet on the east side, 19.6 feet, total side yards into the extent that the property is less than 40,000 sq. ft., more than 20,000 sq. ft., single and separate. It qualifies for the 15 foot, single and separate side yards, the reduction in the side yards, of 15 feet on the individual side of 35 feet on the total side. The lot has the last seal issued only last year, June of 1998 for the screened in porch on the west side. There is actually, this is unusual, a prior Town Southold approval to move this house landward. It happened in 1985. The Building Permit number at that time was 13686Z, which I thought 'meant that it would be a Zoning Board approval to move it landward, but, this ,Page 77 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals truly must of been the good old days because the application to the Building Department was made on January 16, 1985 and the approval was issued by Ed Himmerman, January 25, 1985, 9 days later. So, that's either before your time or my time, or somebody's time, but from reading the Suffolk Times lately I know that there's been some discussion about how things have changed. In any event, at that time it was being moved landward 28 feet. Today it's being moved landward plus or minus 40 feet. We have and we sent as part of the record the Coastal Erosion Management Permit from the Trustees that was issued in August of last year. We have the Suffolk County Health Department approval to relocate sanitary and water. That was approved as of January of this year. We have a No-Jurisdiction letter from the DEC to move the house as of August of last year and so now I'll like to talk if I can for a minute of the Five Statutory Factors that would be the determine factors with respect to this. The first is whether or not moving that house landward would have an adverse impact on any of the neighboring properties. With respect to that, looking not at the Zoning Ordinance but at the Town's Coastal Erosion Hazard Act. One of the purposes and the findings in the Town Board's Adoption 'of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act, is that the landward relocation of a residence of the Long Island Sound would minimize or prevent damage to private man-made property, meaning, adjacent property, So that to the extent that the Town Board has actually found that the landward relocation of structure such as this is good for the neighboring properties, it would be hard for somebody to argue that we're diminishing or adversely affecting neighbor properties. When we move it landward we still maintain a 90 foot front yard plus, more than 90 foot front yard. The Code only requires in this instance a 40 foot front yard. The deck that was on the seaward side of this house traditionally actually was lost to a storm and you can see from one of those photographs that there's literally no room left to maintain that deck. So I think on balance everything that this Board always done on applications dealing with that era of the world. This is consistent with that. We're going away from the problem, trying to reduce the problem. Second standard would be whether or not the benefit sought can be achieved without a variance. There are two problems I'm worried about here. One is, you can say to me, if your tolal side yard is your problem, why don't you reduce the total side yards? The second in the process of moving the house. The second problem is, you could say to me, if you're only moving it 40 ft. landward, why don't you keep going towards the road and move it further landward? That Baker-v-Brownlie case happened one year ago and it is specifically on point and what it says, is that the preamble language under the new codified standards, does the benefit sought by the applicant outweigh the harm to the community? And, then we talk about those five standards. So the first time the court has written about the words, "benefit sought" by the applicant and in that case, the property owner wanted a patio facing, facing Greenpori from Dehring Harbor. The Zoning Board turned them down saying, you could have a patio, but, on the other side of the house that would comply. Of course that would be facing the landward side of the house. Judge Tannenbaum in Central Islip, (coughing), the Zoning Board, the Page 78 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals Second Department, Appellate Division, said, that's not the way you're suppose to think anymore. Now, you have to take what the applicant is proposing, study the benefit he's seeking, and then, work forward from there. So here the benefit that we're seeking is to move the house exactly as it is, not create any new nonconformities, but only move it back so far as to permit us to protect the house, get away from the bluff and here comes the key point. If you see, if you look carefully at the surveys, you'll see that the bluff is an elevation of 50 feet. The front lot line is an elevation of 35 feet so that there's a genuine change in grade where as I goes landward I lose my ability to see the sound. So, they're trying to achieve some balance between the risk of being on the edge and the opportunity to see the water. So, that's why I handed up the Baker-v-Brownlie case which I will ask that at your earliest opportunity you each read. The next standard is whether or not the variance is substantial. The variance is the side yard relief. There is virtually no change to place it so I would urge that there is no substantial variance being requested at all. It's simply a continuing, a continuation of what has always existed. The fourth standard would be whether or not there would be an adverse impact on the environment. The Coastal Erosion Hazard Act again, adopted by the Town Board in 1987, says, that one of its purposes is to protect natural protective features, meaning the bluff. We're moving landward from the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act, the coastal erosion hazard line where we are now seaward of that line, literally extending toward the bluff from that line and so, to that extent I would urge that we do not have any adverse impact on the environment. Finally, whether or not the difficulty is self created. These owners, the applicants before you bought that property on January 4, 1979. Slightly more than 20 years ago. They didn't change anything. They have permits to do what is there today, subject to your approval and to move the house. So, I don't think that standard even applies, under these circumstances. Mr. Hulme is here. He would be happy to answer any questions that you might have and I of course would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only question I have Mr. Tohill is, that can we be reassured that that house is going to replaced in its exact location, OK? As you know, at the 7 foot 6 area, the poured foundations today or whatever type of foundation this gentleman intends to use, things vary, OK, and that, that's always been a concern of ours, you know. Certainly you can monitor a block foundation better than you can sometimes monitor a poured foundation, but a, if the Board was so incline to grant these side yards, OK, we would want to be reassured, I would want to be reassured, that it's going to go on that exact location. You know what I'm saying? MR. TOHILL: Insert a condition in the decision saying, that the Board would want the Building Inspector to have an "as built" that confirms the proposed location as the. built location as a specific condition of any CO. And, by calling it out~ and expressing that concern, I think that would be the right message so that the .Page 79 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals Building Department, I could do it on my end by simply taking the owners on the side and saying, look make sure that when Ernie Davis comes back, he comes back to the exact point that he's, that the surveyor is calling out in the survey. And, I think that that's a completely reasonable request. I don't have a problem with that at all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Mr. Horning? MEMBER HORNING: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Tortora? MEMBER TORTORA: I have no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ms. Collins? MEMBER COLLINS: No, no, I guess no questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dinizio? MEMBER DINIZIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there any attempt by the owners to a, to vegetate this bluff? Is there any yeah. MR. TOHILL: That will happen after they get away from it. They, Mr. Hulme was just speaking to me this evening. Mr. Hulme, the a, they have to create a natural angle to the code. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. TOHILL: Is not there right .now. So, that's going to take some, some work on their part. They have to do it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Anybody else like to speak in favor? Anybody like to speak against? Seeing no hands I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER TORTORA: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. Page 80 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals 9:24 P.M. , Appl. No. 4683 - VIRGINIA CAMPBELL-(Con't.) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, we'll reopen the a, let me just get back to the right file here. We'll reopen the Campbell hearing. I offer that as a resolution ladies and gentlemen. MEMBER HORNING: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor. ALL MEMBERS: Aye. MR. SALVI: Thank you. The recess that we took we had the opportunity to consult with my client and with the seller as well. One of the problems that we have and of course this is just our problem, but, the reason that we wanted to discuss it, we can come back and talk with you folks is, with the contract, we have to have a determination relatively soon from our end, whether or not my client is going to go through with the purchase of this property. So, what we want to do, is ask you for a little more of a guide line towards what you're looking for. Mr. Kelly is going to come up now and I have discussed some alternatives and we certainly get your feedback on that. MR. CHAIRMAN: We certainly don't want to hold you Mr. Kelly. MR. KELLY: And I understand that, and I don't mean to use the time issue is anything other than it's our problem and not yours. I certainly appreciate your consideration. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We, we have at least one person on the Board that supports the issue of, you know, no deck, OK, which eliminates that. Do you feel comfortable with that? MR. KELLY: Well interestingly enough, I've been doing a lot of research. We looked and looked for homes and my wife is a pool person. She wants to have a pool, so I've been doing a lot of research and in fact, in the number of these magazines you find and the people whom I've contracted which is why I wanted to do perhaps a vinyl or a gunite pool as oppose to a, I want to get that cheeked, a gunite pool as oppose to a vinyl liner, is that it was better product. And, a lot of the magazines you look at, you know some of these Architectural DigeSt Magazines and others, they in fact, do have pools which are built, which the water, the color of the water matches the bay. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. KELLY: In fact, it is, it is a coping off to the side and then you have your chaises and you have the lawn cut in a way and I'm sure between my kids and other things, there's always going to be something in the pool, hopefully it will be safe. But, I would be comfortable with that, but, I'd be comfortable with some other things Page 81 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals as well because I grew up here you know, as a kid and I'm very eager to buy Dr. Campbell's house and come back out to the North Fork having spent 40 years in Mattituck as a kid and later not a kid. The pool was proposed 18 or 20 × 40, was sought of a standard pool. This is you know, a normal pool size would be and I realize that 20 x 40 is a, however, if you divide numbers it's 3 and plus percent that you're trying to go. I'd be very willing to propose 18 x 38 type structure, so we shrink it down and then, and then the decking Sir, I would be very happy because the way the layout would be, you'd be facing Shelter Island from that side of the pool and in fact, I'm considering just putting a deck in because I don,t want a lot stuff in the yard and having the lawn cut in a way, or hopefully, I'm sure they'll always be too much stuff but less would be in the pool. So, I'd be very comfortable with decking. I think that we, we, we, if it was 38 x 10, that's another you know, 380 and I think the numbers we came up with a, we take from 29% down to about 24 and change percent. So, basically having the amount of area that we would cover. If, if, that's something that you all felt 'was in, was in the rem of possibilities. Sir, you also asked us as to why we want to have it on that side of the yard, and I, you know, my father taught me as a kid, never ask a question you don't know the answer to, but, I'm going to attempt this anyway at the risk of stepping off the beaten path. Assuming that was within the contexts of what was legally allowable in terms of setback from my neighbor who is currently there and I understand that another gentleman is going to build another home next to us so there will be a neighbor there shortly, I tried to design it in a way where with my kids and stuff if you want to have a, you know, catch with a baseball or something, given the limited size and I would, I agree with you that saying that if it was an acre we wouldn't have this problem. I mean obviously that's not helpful to us, but, given the size of the property, I thought we could construct, construct a pool that my wife would like, I'd have a place to keep my boat sought of out in the front there and my boys could have a place to play baseball. So, we had all kinds of. constituencies that we were sought of trying to serve here and you know, it was only me who drove 3-1/2 hours out from Manhattan to discuss it with you, they're home studying. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: But, you know, right, in all fairness though it really does impact one property owner over the other and that's the reason why I was dealing with the issue MR. KELLY: No, I, I, yes Sir? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And that is the reason why I was dealing with actually centrally locating it. MR. KELLY: I understand and, and I you know, it's not something I'd say out of hand I wouldn't do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: These are extremely valuable pieces of property and they're extremely beautiful pieces of property and the houses are relatively close. Page 82 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals MR. KELLY: Yes Sir. I certainly comment that I agree with the first part, I hope, that they're very valuable and I think that you know, I looked at it just as a layman, that if I'm within the allowable distance and believe me I'm, I'm goner, I'm goner, I'm goner you know be a perfectionist in terms of how I would shrub that and not to be in anybody's, you know, real house with anything. I was just trying to get the biggest bang for my buck because as you know, you know, you're balance a lot of interest and I, I a, you know, that's all I was looking to do and if I centrally locate it, it's hard you know, to run a flag pattern, you know, if you've got the pool in the middle of the yard and you can't go down and cut over. So, that's really a simple, simple thing Sir. MEMBER TORTORA: I a, I like your proposal. That would bring the distance to the bulkhead at 52 rather than 50? Dose that make sense? MR. KELLY: That's correct, yes ma'am. MEMBER TORTORA: OK, and the decking was l0 x 38 would be a on the south, south east - MR. KELLY: That's correct, yes. MEMBER TORTORA: Side only? MEMBER COLLINS: The house side, right? MR. KELLY: Between the house and the pool. MEMBER COLLINS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: tomorrow and fax it to us? You will reduce this to writing for us MEMBER TORTORA: I think it's pretty clear. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well let him fax it to us. Reduce it to writing and fax it to us tomorrow and' we then will be able to deal with it or send it express mail so that we have it by Monday because we'll have a meeting sometime next week. MR. KELLY: OK, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You're welcome. clearing it up tonight. It is a cleaner situation MR. KELLY: Yes, thank you, thanks for your time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else like to speak? Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion closing the hearing reserving decision until later pending the receipt of the final plan, either the attorney or the contract vendee. Page 83 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: All in favor? Motion carried. See Minutes for Resolution. .~Page 84 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals 10:10 P.M. - Appl. No. 4636 - PATRICK MORTIMER A Variance under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4B is requested for a deck addition, as shown on survey amended by March 2, 1999 and March 18, 1999, to be located at less than 75 feet from the existing bulkhead at 3895 Paradise Point Road, Southold, N.Y.; Parcel 1000-81-1-8. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This application was postponed for quite a bit of time and so therefore, I'm going to waive reading of the legal notice again. PT-SECY FARRELL: Are those the green cards? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. And, I will indicate in the file that we have several letters and I won't get into. The Board has read them, we are aware of them and we will ask you Ms. Moore if you would like to proceed? MS. MOORE: Yes, thank you. I'm very glad that we've actually appeared after Mr. Tohill because he did a very nice job in presenting what is a standard that you should be considering and the a, how case law is interpreting the new, the Standards of 267B. I think that we have to keep that in mind because certainly the letters that you've received from a few very vocal a, who just all happened to be attorneys, but, all very vocal neighbors. We a, I think that they've lost sight of the application in what is truly being asked for here. So, I'd like to bring this all back into perspective. Look at the law and keep that in mind because we are at this point the application has been submitted is a very reasonable application. I think the prior application was very reasonable but, certainly subject to the pressures of that, of the neighborhood and for Mr. Mortimer I think to his detriment. I'd like to go through the standards because again as Mr. Tohill I like to follow along and give you the facts to support the law and a, and hopefully this Board will come to a decision that's in favor of the applicant. The first standard is that there will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood. The application is for 32 sq. ft. of nonconformity. The parcels, there are very few vacant parcels here. This par, the properties that are vacant will have a little more flexibility in that they will have the current regulations in front of them when they're placing the house and they're considering the decking and they're considering the accessory structures. On the other hand Mr. Mortimer is living with a house that is presently there. The laws changed after the house was constructed. I know that prior owners had applied for various things along the way and we're constantly at odds with a few of the neighbors because of their constraints of this property. That has not changed. The constraints are still there and I think that the application that has been submitted is attempting to accommodate their concerns, address their concerns, · but, still provide a reasonable livable deck to the Mortimer family. There are some people here, actually I think that everyone that is here that I .,Page' 85 Hearing Tra~ripts April 22, ~1999 - Board of Appeals notice, I know of is in favor of the application. I hope that they'll feel comfortable and confident to speak their mind because unfortunately you always hear from the negative rather than from the positive. I know the proposed deck has been as I say cutback so that it is establishing the same setback that is presently with the existing structure. The only difference being that Httle triangle which is at 32 sq. ft. and the reason for it and Mr. Mortimer and I had a conversation at length because certainly every application is a costly one for them to come back in for 32 sq. ft.. We reaily truly debated over the need to do that and whether it was worth it and his position is that, he's going to live there for the rest of his life. His family is going to or we hope still Hve there for the rest of his live for his family. They want to enjoy a deck and why must they, because they're dealing with some again, with the vocal opponents cutback their request to something that is less than desirable. What has become a deck is one of the most basic amenities that every house out here enjoys. Particularly, waterfront properties. That is the, the area that they enjoy, that they spend most of the summers and it has to be usable. It has to be reasonable. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Pat, I don't understand what you mean by 32 sq. ft. I understand the triangle you're talking about. But, we have a requirement of 75 feet. MS. MOORE: No, no, no. you the point or a, Mr. house presently at 52.8. What happens is, that the and I showed Lewandowsky presented the point. The CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MS. MOORE: Under the Zoning Code, we can maintain 52.8 as the preexisting setback. So, we're not encroaching any further than 52.8. So, if he was to cutback his request and had a somewhat triangular deck on the easterly side, he would not be here. The Building Department would of issued the Building Permit. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, but, then why does the Building Department say it's 75 feet? MS. MOORE: Because that's, that's the section of the code that is a, that's been cited. It's setback within 75 feet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just don't, I, I, apologize. Maybe it's the time of the night or the length of time that we've been here, but, I, I, personally don't, you know - MS. MOORE: No, what, what you get is a Notice of Disapproval cites the section that is, that would be technically in violation. The section of a decking within 75 feet of the bulkhead is the section that is applicable. I don't believe that they're saying, well the entire deck is a, it would be in violation. You need a variance for the entire deck. That's not the case. The setback, it's a preexisting setback as long as you do not encroach beyond the · Page 86 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals preexisting setback you're entitle to a permit under the Zoning Code. So, that's why I say it's a 32 sq. ft. appli, variance application because that's the area of nonconforming. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MS. MOORE: A, are you following me now? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah, I'm following. I followed you all along, but, you know, just that, I certainly didn't build that law, but. MS. MOORE: That's, well that's a, the same with any setback requirement. They're 75 foot setback restriction is the same setback as a side yard. It's an area setback and you already your numerous cases in the Building Department interprets it that if this is where your house is and you not encroaching any further, you can build up to that point and that's considered to be the maximum setback, setback that you may build out to. MEMBER COLLINS: Just a question on this? There was a the denial, the disaploroval back in July last year, which we addressed in December and we denied the plan without prejudice - MS. MOORE: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: new plan.. In the belief that probably there would be a MS. MOORE: Right. MEMBER COLLINS: Has there be a new disapproval or are we still working with the original one? MS. MOORE: You're working with the original one. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. MS. MOORE: Because it's the same, the same setback is applicable. MEMBER COLLINS: OK. Thank you. MS. MOORE: Yeah, that's alright. You're going to notice that when he went out there, I'm sure you noticed that the houses along the lagoon have decks. The houses that are there and Mr. Perricone is here and I admired his house. It's a beautiful home. He's to the west of the Mortimer property and has a beautiful deck in the back and a beautiful home. He's not directly, you're not directly on the lagoon but, you certainly benefit from the view. There is a house across from the lagoon that also has some decking on the second story and the first story. So, it's common. It's something that that neighborhood enjoys as all the homes on the waterfront I think you find and it would be difficult to find one that doesn't have a deck. The benefit sought by the applicant · ,Page' 87 Hearing Tr~cripts April 22,' 1999 - Board of Appeals cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. Weli, the alternative would be, you have a, there really aren't any other alternatives. You have a 3 foot elevation difference between the doors of the first story because you have a full foundation there. The foundation is about 3 feet from grade. Yes, you can put a set of steps, but then you'd be cutting into what would be a slight slope of a hill and you'd be essentially cutting the patio into a, into a, the grass area. One, it doesn't, that's not desirable. Most people don't enjoy stepping down from their sliding glass door onto a patio that's some of the older fifties houses that was in, but since then I think that most of the homes enjoy normal decks that go out from the first story. The a, if you notice the survey, the house is placed somewhat on an angle. It's skewed so that the difficulty again is, that the deck, if the house were straight and again, some of these vacant lots, the letters you got said, oh, we're creating a precedence. Well, I disagree with ~hat analysis, but even so, the vacant lots that are presently there when you're building on that parcel, you can, you would look at the regulations presently in existence and you may consider the fact that you want to straighten the house essentially placed on the property so that when you have a deck you don't have the, the restrictions, you're not angling it off and you're not cutting off portions of it, so, there is flexibility. The letters you got are just so full of a, we use to cali them, morsel red herrings. It's issues that are thrown out that are really non issues. So that there is no presidential value to the, to this deck. Houses have decks, 32 sq. ft. If another applicant comes in, neighbor from one of the vacant lot comes in and they seek a 32 sq. ft. variance, OK, I guess if you denied it, that you would have to give a good reason. Certainly denying this one, you would have to give a very good reason. The variance again, is not substantial. I think by the numbers it speaks for itself. It is truly deminimis, you heard me use that term before. The difference between 4 ft. which is what again, setting the setback at the existing, preexisting setback. We're only talking about a 4 ft. difference. But, it's a significant difference when you're looking at a deck. You're looking at a 9 ft. versus a 13 foot wide decking area. The use, the use of that area and the enjoyment of that deck is significant. And again, as Mr. Tohill pointed out Baker-v-Brownlie, has said, you're standard should be, consider the applicant. Consider what their desires and needs are. You know, don't ignore that under the old law you were more restricted. Now, there's a consideration for what is reasonable and what the applicant reasonable benefit that the applicant can enjoy. The variance will have no adversary effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Some of the letters said some interesting things, but one thing that I did find from the records is that, variances have been sought in this neighborhood. There was some, one of the letters I think aliuded to the fact that nobody has ever issued variances, that I think it was actually one of the opponents. Mr. Bernard mentioned that when he first bought the property he knew that there were variances to be issued and therefore that was it. That was the law. Well what's interesting is, I'm looking at the Zoning Board's record, in 91, he sought a .~Page 88 Hearing Transcripts Jkpril 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals variance from this Board for an accessory garage in the front yard and that accessory garage was to be over 18 inches in height. So, I, I find that their, the arguments and the letters that were submitted are somewhat disingenuous and a I think you know, just a you know, a sign to bully the Board and I find that, you know, certainly as an applicant's attorney, very offensive that the neighbor should bully the Board and taking positions that are not reasonable under the law. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: the mike. Excuse us Pat, we're just playing with MS. MOORE: I was wondering. I was going to stop to see if you had a question or you had a problem with the tape? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: think. Actually we've done very well tonight I MS. MOORE: It's late and a, it's only 10:00 o'clock and that's pretty good. Again, as with a, Mr. Bernard is probably the most (noise from mike)) obviously because he's the opponent but, or one of the objectives that wrote to the Board. There have been other variances issued in this neighborhood and I have a list. I won't go through them all because they're all record in your own files, so that there are several variances that have been issued in this neighborhood and the fact that it truly has no impact on the value of properties in this area or impact the character of the neighborhood. Again, the final, Well one of the fin~il standards is that the alleged difficulty was not self created. Certainly the house was built prior to the 75 foot rule. The deck is the minimal that is necessary to be functional deck for the family. The Mortimers purchased the property never anticipating that they would have such lovely neighbors that they would have to deal with. They purchased the property. They renovated it. They did, they thought what a, you know, what a simple thing, putting a deck on a house and it turned into World War II, III. So, at this point we would hope that the Board grant the variance as it, as it's been requested. Again, we cut it back to the minimal and we know that there will be some people here that I hope will voice their support and I know Mr. Mortimer wants to speak to the Board because the last time unfortunately was unable to be here. So, - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We figured out the problem Mrs. Moore. PT-SECY. FARRELL: Speak louder. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You got to speak louder in the mike. MS. MOORE: I hope you picked up this transcript? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We'll get it. MS. MOORE: Good, I'm counting on it. Page' 89 Hearing Tr cripts April 22,~ 1999 ~- Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Mortimer how are you tonight Sir? MR. MORTIMER: I'm doing well. I'm a little tired. My daughter was up with an asthma attack all night, so I'm tired. I'll try to make this brief. I appreciate it. I understand you guys have been here a long time. I want to try and just go through my background a little bit and my motivation. It's important for me to do this because for really four reasons. One, the motivation, two, kind of the problems we had with the application the way it was filed the last time, three, in some of the letters they talk about putting in some restrictions on the property, four, they talk about why the Trustees or the Association wasn't notified prior to it. If I could just take you back to 96 and believe me this story will not take as long as it sounds at the beginning. But, in December of 96, I was diagnosed with ??cincoma which is a rare form of cancer. It's a, one in one million cases, which means as you know of many rare diseases is not typically a cure. I had a tumor removed along with 30% of my stomach, my spleen, and they had cut the tumor ribs. After that operation I was told that there was a 75% chance that it came back. I was, my father passed away on the 1st of January, 98. 98?, yeah 98, or was it 97? Anyway, after that what had happened was, I had a metastasis where the tumor had come back. Between those two point in time, I had come out to Southold. I had been out here in Southold many times and my parents have taken us out here many times and I felt that it was important for me considering my situation. I have two young children that for my own mental health it would important to me to be able to have kind of a sanctuary, because mental health is important when you're going through what I was going through. I had discussed with my surgeon as to whether I should even purchase the house considering what I was going to go through. A reoccurrence of this very rare cancer. And, he had said that he thought it was a good idea, that it would actually be very helpful for me to have a place to recover and spend some time over the summer and enjoy. What had happened I went through a 4 hour surgery in February, two days after I closed on the house. They were unable to remove the tumor and after that we had several discussions with a number of specialist in the area and they told me that, you know, that from their perspective they didn't know if there was really going to be a cure. That anything that they may do, is more be a, focus around life preserving as oppose or, to life prolonging as oppose to life preserving. However, what they wanted to try was something relatively new and what I went through was last summer when I wasn't able to get the deck was six months of chemotherapy, very intensive chemotherapy, where I spent three to four days in the hospital and over two weeks recovering where I couldn't even come out to the house because of the problems that I had. And, you know, as it relates to the application last summer you can understand that I did not focus on it. I think people were trying to accommodate me. They understood the situation I was going through and because of that I don't think that we necessarily did a very good job of putting forth the proper application. This story will only take two more minutes. I apologize. .Page 90 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRIVLkN GOEHRINGER: No problem, no problem. MR. MORTIMER: After six months of chemotherapy I had an operation in September of 98. That was the same day I believe that Bruce Anderson had put forth the application and unfortunately you could understand that I could not be here. I went through an 8 hour surgery at that time, including intensive radiation therapy at the time. I was very fortunate that they were able to remove the tumor at the time. After that I went through 5 weeks of radiation. Two days after I got out of surgery, I got a call from Bruce Anderson that my application was denied and you know, in relative priority obviously is unimportant but, to me, I mean mentally it was very important to me. On the other thing that is unfortunate for me is, that I wish the people that were opposing me were here because I like to tell them the story to them directly because unfortunately they never approached me at any point in time to discuss the deck and I would love to have the opportunity to do that. I'll probably do that on my own. But, in addition to that, I think, you know where we are now, is that the deck is an important part of enjoying the property, enjoying the water and mental health is very important. I've embarked on a significant campaign to try and keep myself clean. That is a very difficult task. I live my life at three months at a time. What happened most recently is that about two weeks ago I had the same pain, I had dizziness, I had numbness in my hand and I thought that the tumor had come back. I was scheduled for a CAT Scan two weeks from today. I asked the surgeon to move the CAT Scan up by two weeks because I really felt that this tumor had come back. Lucky for me that the tumor had not come back. All of the symptoms went away. No more dizziness, no tingling in the hand, no more pain in the stomach. The point of that is, is that mental health is very important. The mind because an important part in the overall well being and I think that is .a part of that process for me. It seems kind of minor but in the scheme of things it really has become an important part of me, part of my process to keep myself healthy to enjoy that deck. The last thing that I would mentioned as it relates to mental health, I spend a lot of time talking to patients who are about to go through the same things that I have because it is very rare and it's been a very difficult process for me and the only point I would make is that what seems very minor in the way of square footage is very important to me personally. In addition to that, some of the letters they talk about restrictions. One of the problems I have with restrictions is, I am fortunate that I still have a job. I lost quite a bit of time at work. This house is twice the value of my primary home. I have a lot invested in this house and I think that any restrictions that would reduce the value of the house as oppose to (inaudible) and a chance to go higher if this tumor comes back, that you know, my financial well beings is very important. Anything that will reduce the value of the house I think will be detrimental for me and for my family. If I appear a little nervous it's because I am. Telling the story is very difficult for me having 'lived through it but, I just thought it was important because I wasn't able to be here the last time. I wasn't able to face the people that opposed me the last time for not very good reasons and they kind of make a habit of opposing Page' 91 Hearing Tr~cripts April 22,, 1999 - Board of Appeals anyone who tries to do anything in the neighborhood and that's unfortunate and I have to live with that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We have to change the tape. MR. MORTIMER: Oh, I'm sorry, but I'm pretty much done. I think that's it. MS. MOORE: (Changing tape) He's had the lumber in his basement waiting to build this deck and it's still there and hopefully the Board will take that into consideration and approve that within a reasonable time so that he can the deck before the beginning of the season. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I hate to ask this question, but I will anyway. Alternate relief is within reality? MS. MOORE: Well if we can talk about it. I think you have to tell us what it is that you're considering because then - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't know what it is. It's unanimity. You know, three votes. MS. MOORE: OK, OK. I mean the size of the deck is really quite small for a function purposes of what is it, 13 - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm just saying - We're, we're not splitting hairs here. MS. MOORE: OK, yeah, because we're really - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: know, OK? If it's within a foot or two, please, you MS. MOORE: A, and the second - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It may happen, it may not happen. have no idea how my Board votes. MS. MOORE: Yeah, just keep in mind that this is a long, long haul. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No problem with the restriction that the deck remain open? MS. MOORE: That was one thing that, that he just pointed out that was a concern. We talked about that as offering it as a condition and the concern we had is as he points out, it's the value to him and to his family, to value this property is certainly impacted by conditions that are imposed. He has no intentions of enclosing it. But, God-for-bit something happens to him, he feels he loses his job whatever, he has to seli this house, if you get a little mom and pop who say, oh, I've always wanted, you know, I'd buy this house but if it weren't for this condition that I have to have a deck and I, I'm an Irishman that gets red and I burn easily and I'd like an ~age 92 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals enclosure, I don't care about a deck I just want a screened in porch so I can enjoy my, you know, my martini and look out on the deck. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: the question. Well that's the only reason why I asked MS. MOORE: Yeah, we've thought about it and I'm glad you raised it, because it's certainly something that ordinarily would not present a problem but, given the circumstances the condition might be something that would effect the value of this property and that's something we prefer not to do. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any questions from anybody? MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah, I have a comment to make. Pat, you know how I feel. You've heard me plenty of times speak about people's property rights. But, however, you know on a deck, specifically a deck that is close to the water that requires variance I can never recall us ever granting a deck without saying that it would not be covered. I just want to be, you know, in other words, I don't want, I don't want this applicant to think that there's a possibility of that and in all honesty, it's not a restriction to reduce his property, but rather you know, it's what we've always done with decks. Now if he had come in and asked us for a covered porch, OK, whatever it happened to be, we would handle that application. But, when we grant a deck, especially on the water, that is, now you know where I come from too, that's why I'm trying to be specific to you, I don't want this applicant to think that we would be singling him out because Mr. Barnard or Mr. Boyd made a complaint, it's what we always do Sir. We never grant a deck, if we have granted that piece that are covered, we always ask them to always keep it uncovered. MS. MOORE: Can I make a suggestion that so as to not- MR. MORTIMER: he said). (Was not speaking into mike, unable to hear what MS. MOORE: Oh, well actually he makes a good point that if it were not for that 32 sq. ft. the Board would have no ability to make any restrictions on the decking because of the way the Code reads the setback, an area variance of the setback. So, keeping that in mind that the relief requested here is the 32 sq. ft. That, that condition seems very a, a, it seems like an extensive condition based on an application that's relatively very minor. MEMBER DINIZIO: Well, I would say you would be right if we didn't do it even for one foot. We've done it for a person who has asked for a variance of,. you know, instead of having a 9 foot deck they wanted a 20 foot deck and we say no, it must remain open. I mean I can think back in the past Where it's been a lot less than 32 sq. ft. we were talking about. Just simply the fact that they had to apply for. Page 93 Hearing Tr~cripts April 22,. 1999 - Board of Appeals MS. MOORE: No, concerned with, is, is nullified. no, no, I mean the, your, your vari, what he's well if he cuts off a 32 sq. ft., the application MEMBER DINIZIO: You're absolutely right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well except for overhanging and except for other things that concern, you know. MS. MOORE: No, keep in mind that Mr. Goehringer, I disagree. It's an area variance. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright, so you can go a couple, you can go a foot over where the overhang so on and so forth, but we have, you know, there are other situations which cause deck problems on the water, OK, and that is roof runoff toward the water and so on and so forth. You see the deck itself, when the water runs off regardless if you don't have gutters on that, OK, it runs on to the deck and disburses throughout the property, OK, as oppose to, you know, a fixed roof running in that direction. I'm not here to give anybody a lesson on construction, because Mr. Perricone can give anybody a lesson on construction ten times better than I can give a lesson on construction, OK, but, I'm just saying to you, that is one of the precedence or preambles, and I'm not speaking for Jim because Jim can speak for himself, that is one of the issues we deal with. MS. MOORE: May I make a suggestion because you have a choice of saying, you know what, stick your 32 sq. ft. and I'll go back to you know, an angle deck and then nobody has anything to say about it. MEMBER DINIZIO: Right. MS. MOORE: However, a way of addressing the issue so that it won't be enclosed without further review by the Board so that if somebody comes to look at the house, there not, they don't have to know, if you want to look at it again, if you're going to enclose it, that you don't want to automatically, you don't want the owner to think that they can automatically do it, but keep in consideration that they should come before the Board if they choose to roof it. I mean clearly you're talking about screening. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You know, the unique part about this deck is, from a construction point of view, you would probably want to screen half of it, OK. MR. MORTIMER: Actually, if you saw the house, both the living room and dining room are all windows CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. MR. MORTIMER: OK, with screens. There's no reason to add another screen room in front of a screen room. [Page 94 Hearing Transcripts ~pril 22, 1999 - Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right, but I mean, you would normally do the section that is closest to the swimming pool anyway, probably in my opinion. MR MORTIMER: Yeah, I mean I don't have an intention of closing it in. But I mean, certainly I don't want to put further restrictions on the property that I don't already have. That's certainly an issue for me. I mean I an genuine when I say, that I am concern, that I would be concerned about the value of this house and of my own personal well-being. It's not my intent to build. If you look at the house, you can see everything is windowed in the back. If the mosquitoes as they point out come and I've experienced mosquitoes with no hair on my head, biting on my head, I can certainly go inside the house and still enjoy the backyard. That is not my intent. MEMBER TORTORA: The more I look at the survey, I'm having a tough time understanding, I mean I understand the deck condition but, in this case, aside from that little square area of 32 sq. ft., they could put on a, enclosed addition - MS. MOORE: Right, exactly. MEMBER TORTORA: Without even coming to this Board. So I'd be hard pressed to make that an across the Board condition - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well we're like a dealer. We asked for alternate relief and that's the purpose of - MS. MOORE: Yeah, I don't want to get into the position of saying, no, because the last time you asked for alternate relief - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That was, that was - MS. MOORE: And poor Bruce gave, what, come them off at the knees. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well that's the purpose of asking for alternate relief. If there's give and take you have votes and that's the way you do it. You go through unanimity situation and that's it. So~ lets - MEMBER HORNING: Mr. Chairman. 'CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. MEMBER HORNING: Being I'm relatively new to the Board, I, I, this question of a 32 sq. ft. or whatever and if in fact this wasn't an issue that they could make this extension even though it was not 75 feet from the bulkhead, is that absolutely true? MEMBER TORTORA: Because of the line of the house. MR. HORNING: I mean you can just extend it? · Page 95 Hearing Tr cripts April 22,~ 1999 ~- Beard of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: Yes. MS. MOORE: Yeah, it's a, you, in fact, the surveyor drew for us, (everybody talking at one time. ) CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. MEMBER HORNING: Alright. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just, I, this has nothing to do with your applicant. Nothing to do with this nice man. Nothing to do with anybody that's here. I just had a difficulty, a difficulty understanding that aspect, but it has nothing to do with this application, OK. MS. MOORE: I can go talk to the Building Department, but, I think you guys have already, have in here decisions. Actually think of it as a side yard where you can go along a side yard as long as you don't encroach the establish structure. You've seen probably - CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand, yes, I understand. MS. MOORE: 3,000 applications like this one. MEMBER DINIZIO: On waterfront property? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. In any case, is there someone else that would like to speak so we can wrap this? Yes, Sir. How are you tonight? MR. SCALEY: Good, CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just state your name for the record. MR. SCALEY: Robert Scaley, 4550 Paradise Point Road, about 3 houses away from the Mortimers to the east. I've lived on Paradise Point for 44 years and I'm Member of the Board of Directors of Paradise Point Association but, I'm speaking for myself. Not for the Board, although I do say that I think that if this man had been brought to the Board, we would of been in favor of Mr. Mortimer's application, but, I'm not speaking for the Board. The house is on a mariner, it's on a boat basin. The boat basin has probably 15-20 boats in it. So there's motors running in the mariner. It's not that the people were complaining or impacted by it. In fact, two of the people you can see the backyard of Mr. Mortimer's property from their property. They're across the street, one of them particular is up the block further east of Mr. Mortimer than I am. His application has no impact whatsoever on either the mariner or on the neighborhood and I think I've covered most of my points. I have absolutely no problem with the application and I think we need less retired lawyers in the word. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Anybody else? Page 96 Hearing Transcripts ~kpril 227 1999 - Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: I have a question Jerry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How are you tonight Sir? MR. CRIBLEZ: Fine. My name is Gastone Criblez. C R I B L E Z. I also live at Paradise Point. 4900 Paradise Point Road and I'm also across the street from Mr. Mortimer and I'm also on the Board of Paradise Point Association, Vice President. If this was a problem for them I guess they would have had a representative for negative corr~ment, if that were the ease. But, then again, I'm here personally for my wife and myself. We have no problems with this deck. Once again, not to be repetitious what Bob Scaley said, is just the facts. There's only two houses on the mariner. The mariner is full of boats. It just has no involvement with the community, this particular deck that's being installed. We have no problems with it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Sir. MR. PERRICONE: My name is Steve Perricone. I also live on Paradise Point. 3935 Paradise Point. Mr. Mortimer is my neighbor and I have a deck and by the way, my deck is less than 300 feet away from his proposed deck. I measured that today and I believe that the people who are complaining about this are just totally harassing everybody on Paradise Point constantly and I guess one of them has a lot of influence in this town which I don't think he should have, if you want to take into consideration his character. I'm not here to knock anyone. When you break the law you should be punished and unfortunately some people aren't. He's also a lawyer, I hope he's retired now. He should be. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Come on, let's skip this up please. MI{. PERRICONE: That's alright, I've got time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You've got time but not to discredit other people, OK. Let's move it along please. MR. PERRICONE: We also have another gentleman who was complaining about this who also harasses everyone on Paradise Point. We're kind of getting tired of it and a, I don't think anyone should even take their likes or dislikes into consideration conSidering they complain about everything. I'm also a Member of the Building and Grounds Committee on Paradise Point Association and I talked to several of the other Members of that committee and they also don't have a problem with this deck. It doesn't impact the community at all. Again, it's on the mariner and there's a lot of activity on the mariner and as far as Mr. Mortimer and his family goes, they're very nice people and I don't think they'll do anything · to hurt the community or want to do anything to hurt the community or to distaste the community. I think this application should be considered and granted. Page 97 Hearing Tr~cripts April 22, 1999 ~- Board of Appeals CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: against the application? I'll make a motion- Thank you. OK, anybody like to speak I just have to ask that. Seeing no hands MEMBER COLLINS: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Oh, I'm sorry, I'm terribly sorry, I apologize. MEMBER COLLINS: Quick question. Ms. Moore's letter to us recently stated, "Mr. Mortimer intends to remove the shed". It was simply a statement in your letter. I would like to know for the record whether that is for real. MS. MOORE: Yes, it's shown on the survey as to be removed. Mr. Mortimer, are you going to remove the shed? MR. MORTIMER: Yes. Listen I've learned since I was a kid by my parents to play by the rules. Unfortunately I purchased the house, they represented they had a CO for the shed. When I found out it didn't, I made sure that we put this on the application because I want to play by the rules and we will remove the shed, no problem. MEMBER COLLINS: No, it makes a difference to me I must say, and MS. MOORE: OK. MEMBER DINIZIO: Can I just comment for clarity? That you're saying that that 32 feet is really the subject of this application? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: 32 sq. ft. MS. MOORE: 32 sq. ft. MEMBER DINIZIO: Yeah and if they did not build that, they could put a roof over the rest of that? MS. MOORE: Correct. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK. MS. MOORE: Correct, they could enclose it. They could make it an expansion of their house. MEMBER DINIZIO: OK, then I misunderstood. MS. MOORE: That's OK. MEMBER COLLINS: George, my colleague - MEMBER DINIZIO: The time before that · iPage 98 Hearing Transcripts April 22, 1999 Board of Appeals MEMBER COLLINS: true?, and I was asking the same question. I don't think we have to argue on that. My colleague, Mr. Homing asked, is that really But, I think it's moot. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK, thank you. thank you for everything - MS. MOORE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Pat and Mr. Mortimer, a pleasure and everybody else. Hearing no further comment, I close the hearing reserving decision until later. MEMBER DINIZIO: Second. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alt in favor? See Minutes for Resolution. Motion carried. End of Hearing.